• 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.

Key Collector App - What's the verdict?
2 2

390 posts in this topic

14 hours ago, Park said:

I downloaded the app and it’s pretty cool.

I am debating as of yet whether or not the information regarding the appearance of Spidey’s black costume is the ruination of our hobby.

I’m sure it almost certainly is though.

The bastige.

 

9 hours ago, Rhymenoceros said:

If you're willing to put in the time to compile a list of all the legitimate errors you find, I'm sure he would appreciate the helpful info. Chances are with 14k books there are a couple. 

There are a couple others that have caused quite the commotion in the social media side of the hobby. No need to bring those up again. Calling back to an earlier post, it moves the needle on the market. And once it's out, it's hard to pull back.

Edited by ygogolak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2019 at 11:32 PM, Key Collector Comics said:
On 5/23/2019 at 11:08 PM, Lazyboy said:

ASM 252 is the only first appearance of the black costume.

Thats a topic that is debated to the point of boredom. Even the company who’s forum were chatting in produces labels that disagree with your statement. 

1. There is no debate, and those who do debate are wasting their time. ASM #252 was on sale about two weeks before both PPSSM #90 and MTU #141. While the copyright records aren't always *strictly* accurate, absent recorded data from Marvel or other contemporaneous sources (which does exist!), it's the best public information available, and demonstrates this time difference:

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 252, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-10; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001319971

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=5&ti=1,5&Search_Arg=amazing spider man&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=vxrIafEOOCQBj21Aayc1aBWC5ccn&SEQ=20190525112014&SID=3

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 141, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001328284

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=marvel team up&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=CigPEl_QvyVTx7jc9__Rv5GJAIkp&SEQ=20190525114109&SID=4

 

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 90, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001325179

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search_Arg=peter parker&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=8yDJ-HcJVkvltTwP8Jp2DZ9foCv&SEQ=20190525114300&SID=7

The three Spiderman titles did not all come out the same week, even in 1984. Note the publication dates for ASM #252, then for MTU #141 & PPSSM #90.

As well, using abductive reasoning, we understand that Marvel wanted the biggest impact for the new costume...which had an even bigger impact than they anticipated...and wouldn't have diluted that impact by publishing, simultaneously, three books with the new costume. #252 was the first one out of the gate.

2. CGC does not "disagree" with his statement; CGC only goes by cover date, which is confined to the month. All three books share the same publication month, but they do not share the same publication date. And, as has been pointed out numerous times before, CGC label information is neither always accurate nor always present, and ought not be considered determinative in questions of factual accuracy. CGC makes a good effort to be accurate, but they do not have a dedicated fact-checker on staff, and label data can be (and often is) inaccurate or incomplete.

3. Being dismissive of criticism...especially involving legitimate factual errors in your app...will tend to magnify that criticism. Inability to listen and adjust has resulted in very bad experiences for many business ventures throughout history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2019 at 11:36 PM, Lazyboy said:
On 5/23/2019 at 11:32 PM, Key Collector Comics said:

Thats a topic that is debated to the point of boredom. Even the company who’s forum were chatting in produces labels that disagree with your statement. 

CGC's error does not justify your own. If you're going to be just another contributor to the spread of misinformation, go away.

Agreed 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2019 at 5:53 AM, Bookery said:

Key Collector... every new resource that comes out receives the same naysayer and snarky treatment.  When I produced the first pulp price guide (back in 2001) just the advance word that it was coming out produced an uproar.  I was attacked and called names by people who had never met me nor had seen the guide (since it wasn't even released at this point).  They were certain it would just be used to inflate prices and "ruin the market" the same way those terrible comic folks ruined theirs (the pulp collectors at that time bitterly despised comic collectors).  They also resented that all of this information would now be made public... key stories, 1st author appearances, pseudonyms, 1st app. of a character, etc.  They wanted this information to themselves so that they could buy collections cheap.  When I set up at the pulp convention that year to premiere the book, they even had my dealer table turned toward a wall at the back.  I made few sales that day, as attendees didn't want to be seen carrying around the book.  But I was swamped with mail orders from those same people a week later.

This is a bit discordant....

hm

On 5/24/2019 at 5:53 AM, Bookery said:

Moreover... at least 2 of the posters attacking you here do this in pretty much every thread... they live to be nasty and disruptive, so their arguments can pretty much be dismissed out of hand.

Comments like these have no place here. Attempting to persuade people to dismiss others because you don't personally like them is out of line. Personal opinions about others neither validates, nor invalidates, what they may say. "Consider the source" rarely has the broad applicability that many people wish to assert. The way you see someone doesn't mean others do, or should, see them the same way.

Criticism and correction is life. Is it annoying? Can it even hurt? Of course. But the ego ought to be soundly thrashed and beaten to within an inch of its life at all possible turns, and kept firmly in its place. A tall order, I know, but necessary to life. The ability to handle criticism is what separates success from failure, in virtually everything. 

No one deserves to be "dismissed out of hand", ever, about anything. If what someone says has merit...regardless of your personal feelings about the person...the wise man listens. That doesn't mean that you have or ought to listen to someone you don't get along with...but trying to influence others not to definitely crosses the line, for everyone.

On 5/24/2019 at 6:13 AM, speedcake said:

Haven’t seen a single personal attack in this thread hm

nor any instance where anyone said the app shouldn’t exist. 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gaard said:

Did you know toasters, these days, do 4 slices at a time?

Best line in the entire thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2019 at 6:51 AM, Bookery said:

Well, I'm sure there would be arguments on what constitutes the nuances of a "personal attack".  Suffice it to say that there are criticisms that can be helpful... both to the designer and the potential user... and then there are others that are just meant to deride and demean.  Maybe it can be agreed that there has been a less-than-respectful tone--

"Those guys [who highlight keys to buy] were a waste of space and air at every con they attended, and now we have you to thank for the new batch"

"This is gonna be a go-to tool for the tools who want to "invest" in comic books... it highlights the aspect that appeals to those tools."

"if you're delusional enough... then ignorance truly is bliss"

"comic flippers, who are a disservice to the hobby, will be attracted to the app"

"I saw a YouTube video on how to use the app, had a big belly laugh, and moved on with my life"

"If you're going to be just another contributor to the spread of misinformation, go away"

 

 

You're now quoting specific individuals, which makes these personal attacks. What you see as "less-than-respectful tone", others...including me...may see as plainspoken truth.

I may not necessarily agree with everything contained in these quotes...and I don't...but you've lumped multiple quotes from multiple people together, which muddies the water a bit.

I think people who have no interest in comics as an artform, and simply use it as their chosen vehicle to make money, are terrible for the hobby/industry/whatever you want to call it, and are a great disservice to those of us who enjoy the artform as an artform. 

And those who contribute to the spread of misinformation should definitely go away: they do actual damage to actual people by telling them things that aren't true, leading them to make decisions which hurt them, financially and other ways, that they would not make had they known the facts.

Those who haughtily go around spreading misinformation, of the kind that you see on blogs all over the internet, and who oppose correction to the point of actively attempting to silence their critics, should be driven from the hobby as quickly as possible. I'm not suggesting this is the case with this app...we'll see...but it is certainly the case with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nico Esq said:

If you love this hobby, please make a point to help shepherd newer collectors in their collecting as best you know how.  Rather than throwing stones at one another, perhaps we could take some time and  appreciate that there's room enough for everyone in the hobby(hoarders, key collectors, run collectors, flippers, speculators, retailers, etc.). 

I agree with you (and always have), with one...ok, two...caveats: 

1. People who willfully and purposely spread misinformation, for their own gain or otherwise, and actively resist correction. Those people I will happily and gladly throw as many stones at as it takes until they change their tunes.

2. People who have no interest in the artform whatsoever, and couldn't tell you the difference between Cable and Caliban, or Deadpool and Gwenpool. Those people I will continue to try and convince to open up a comic and actually read it.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Key Collector Comics said:

If I can't point to a source that tells me that it is the first appearance than I'm not going to include the information and call it accurate.

By that logic, you ought not include any information at all. It's just as bad to include "information" that you can't refute as it is to include information you know to be inaccurate.

19 hours ago, ygogolak said:

Mike's is a great and trusted resource as well.

It is my understanding that Mike's information uses the Copyright office records to a very large extent (which is why it's such a good resource.)

19 hours ago, Key Collector Comics said:

Ive read through plenty of CGC posts of dealers having a conversation about this where some have remember 252 coming out first and others recall 141 arriving first and there are still others who have mentioned inconsistencies because of newsstand deliveries.

Links to said conversations...?

hm

19 hours ago, Key Collector Comics said:

The point is, its not clear

That is incorrect.

19 hours ago, Key Collector Comics said:

people's recollection of what was delivered to them 35 years ago is not enough for me to state as fact.

Correct...but we do not have to rely on people's recollections.

19 hours ago, Key Collector Comics said:

The fact is, they have a published date in May - #252 is a great cover and the most sought after so call it what you want.  Beyond that, whats the point of continuing a conversation that can't be resolved.  I appreciate your attention to this...but I would imagine you have better things to do with your life as do I.  

Your app is meant to appeal to data-driven users. If your data is flawed...then, no, you don't have anything better to do with your life at this moment than to fix it. And being dismissive about it does you no credit. If you disagree with it, state your disagreement and then move on. Telling critics they have "better things to do with their life" tells me that you aren't as professional as you need to be. Will you listen...?

:popcorn:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Callaway29 said:

Tact is a skill. Not everyone has developed it. Those who don’t have it wear their brashness like a badge of honor, but it’s a painfully transparent insecurity to the enlightened.

Thread officially hijacked.

hm

We're still talking about the app, are we not...?

What value is "tact" in the face of bad information? It's easy to be loved by everyone: tell them what they want to hear. That's a piece of cake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Key Collector Comics said:
12 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Every piece of misinformation hurts, especially when it comes from someone pretending to be some kind of authority.

And do you really think that's the only error on there? I kind of want to get the app now just so I can see how many pieces there are after I tear it to shreds.

Sounds good.  I’d love to have an editor 

Wait...you don't have one already...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Wait...you don't have one already...?

Pretty sure it's just him for the most part, an app developer, and occasional others that chime in on new books/featured lists or cross promote sites otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rhymenoceros said:
22 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Wait...you don't have one already...?

Pretty sure it's just him for the most part, an app developer, and occasional others that chime in on new books/featured lists or cross promote sites otherwise. 

Everyone should have an editor. It's easy to make mistakes when one is dealing with large amounts of repetitive data, even if one is an expert in the field.

I'm of the school that thinks nothing should ever be published for public use without being edited by someone. Another pair of eyes is invaluable. It's why more than one person looks at each book that gets graded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bookery said:

In partial response to the above post... I just paid for an annual subscription on my desktop.  Have only had a couple of minutes to scan the site, but it appears everything is there.  Looks interesting.  I didn't realize how inexpensive the subscription is.  That's a lot of work just from what I've seen for $19.95 (year) (about the cost of a package of mylars).  As one might glean from my previous posts, I'm a reference book and data junkie.  My office is lined with hundreds of reference books.  Some are excellent, some not so great, but it is rare not to find something useful in all of them.  You (Key Collector) have set yourself up for a major workload, keeping up with all of the myriad changes and fluctuations out there.  I had it lucky with pulps... since they pretty much died out in the 1950s, not a lot of new information popping up on a daily basis, and few variants to deal with (but, yes, there actually are a few in the pulp world).

Thank you for your support.  It’s a lot of work but it’s also lot of fun. I’ll send you a direct message 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

1. There is no debate, and those who do debate are wasting their time. ASM #252 was on sale about two weeks before both PPSSM #90 and MTU #141. While the copyright records aren't always *strictly* accurate, absent recorded data from Marvel or other contemporaneous sources (which does exist!), it's the best public information available, and demonstrates this time difference:

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 252, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-10; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001319971

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=5&ti=1,5&Search_Arg=amazing spider man&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=vxrIafEOOCQBj21Aayc1aBWC5ccn&SEQ=20190525112014&SID=3

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 141, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001328284

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=marvel team up&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=CigPEl_QvyVTx7jc9__Rv5GJAIkp&SEQ=20190525114109&SID=4

 

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 90, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001325179

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search_Arg=peter parker&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=8yDJ-HcJVkvltTwP8Jp2DZ9foCv&SEQ=20190525114300&SID=7

The three Spiderman titles did not all come out the same week, even in 1984. Note the publication dates for ASM #252, then for MTU #141 & PPSSM #90.

As well, using abductive reasoning, we understand that Marvel wanted the biggest impact for the new costume...which had an even bigger impact than they anticipated...and wouldn't have diluted that impact by publishing, simultaneously, three books with the new costume. #252 was the first one out of the gate.

2. CGC does not "disagree" with his statement; CGC only goes by cover date, which is confined to the month. All three books share the same publication month, but they do not share the same publication date. And, as has been pointed out numerous times before, CGC label information is neither always accurate nor always present, and ought not be considered determinative in questions of factual accuracy. CGC makes a good effort to be accurate, but they do not have a dedicated fact-checker on staff, and label data can be (and often is) inaccurate or incomplete.

3. Being dismissive of criticism...especially involving legitimate factual errors in your app...will tend to magnify that criticism. Inability to listen and adjust has resulted in very bad experiences for many business ventures throughout history.

Thanks for the links 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love seeing collectors/speculators using this app months or a year(s) after books have had their run up and are ice cold. They are happy getting a discount on the book, and I am happy dumping it since it is basically unsellable at the old prices. Just because a book has a 1st appearance of a character linked to a failed TV show/died in a movie/fizzled in comics it does not mean it will hold any value long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I did a quick cursory glance of the site, and found a multitude of errors, such as "double covers" being listed as "variants", and newsstand versions being listed as "variants", and purported print runs for books that have no public print run info (which misleads a ton bunch of people, some of whom want to be misled), and other such errors, along with various spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. And, of course, despite being presented as "free", the "best information" is hidden behind a pay wall. There's nothing wrong with hiding information behind a pay wall, but it does mean that the creator has a financial motive, and has an obligation to make sure the information he presents is 100% accurate.

The verdict, for me, as the OP requested, is a hard pass until and if the app's creator addresses these issues.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Correction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As well, using abductive reasoning, we understand that Marvel wanted the biggest impact for the new costume...which had an even bigger impact than they anticipated...and wouldn't have diluted that impact by publishing, simultaneously, three books with the new costume. #252 was the first one out of the gate.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.  In 1984 publishers were not catering to the "investment" collector such as they are now.  Why would presenting your idea in 3 titles at once not increase impact rather than dilute it?

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

3. Being dismissive of criticism...especially involving legitimate factual errors in your app...will tend to magnify that criticism. Inability to listen and adjust has resulted in very bad experiences for many business ventures throughout history.

I don't see how he was being dismissive of criticism.  He said he wanted hard evidence, not anecdotal.  The first time anything approaching hard evidence appeared was in your post with publication data.  It would have been handy had this been posted 10-pages earlier.

I'll be honest... I had no idea there was a debate on this issue until THIS thread.  Years ago, it was always stated 252 was the 1st app.  Then at some point it was announced it was a 3-way tie.  Okay, fine.  I was unaware it had changed back again.  Neither Ovestreet nor CGC should be the final word on anything (I've found a number of errors in OPG) -- but compared to the massive amount of data both entities deal in, factual errors are fairly few, and should not be assumed to be wrong until shown otherwise.  NEWS FLASH -- not everybody lives on these boards.  I have not seen the other threads, no matter how many times this debate was supposedly presented ad nauseum.  Not everybody has 54,000 posts here, and most of us hit a few threads here and there that look interesting.  Your post presented useful data that neither I, nor presumably Key Collector, had seen.  Great!  As I come across these issues I'll adjust my labels accordingly.  But to belittle someone for being unaware of specific debates on these boards is silly.  Frankly, I find most threads after a few posts devolve into exactly what this one has... a few supercilious individuals brandishing their holier-than-thou cards.  It's why good information is indeed lost in a morass of snide poseurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2