Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Entertainment

1938 Superman Comic Sells For $1M 267

Posted by kdawson
from the check-those-boxes-in-the-attic dept.
slasher999 writes in to note a new world record sale for a comic: an instance of Action Comics #1, 1938, sold for $1 million at auction. Both the buyer and the seller remain anonymous. This comic marked the first time a superhero went to work in a city, and the first time a man flew without mechanical aid.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1938 Superman Comic Sells For $1M

Comments Filter:
  • by mano.m (1587187)
    It may be valuable as a cultural artefact, which pushed up its price to a million dollars, but is it worth it? A comic book, really?
    Although imo, it's still far more meaningful than a lot of what passes as modern 'art'.
    • by Jojoba86 (1496883) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @05:33AM (#31242524)
      Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Some was willing to pay a million dollars, therefore that's what it's worth.
      • by mikael_j (106439)

        Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

        /Mikael

        • Value is what someone will pay, inputs determine whether you can produce it at a profit. You can turn lead into gold in a particle accelerator at fantastic expense, but when you get done it's worth no more than gold from the ground.
        • by c6gunner (950153) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @07:06AM (#31243002)

          An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

          I've heard that argument before, and it's never been convincing. The first major problem that comes to mind is that under such a system, an old 26" black-and-white CRT television set would be worth roughly the same as a modern 56" LCD. Likewise, a Chinese knockoff of an iPhone would be worth exactly the same as the genuine article, even though it's complete crap. Your system makes no allowance for depreciation, or differences in quality. The other problem is that your system encourages inefficiency and laziness. If you take 10 hours and $5 in raw materials to make a chair, and I take 50 hours and $20 in raw materials to make a shittier chair, I can sell my product for a much higher price even though yours is actually superior.

          Of course, the biggest problem is that nobody has the right to tell me what I can charge for my product, or what I can pay for yours. Implementing your "hypothetical economy" would require a regime more oppressive than the old USSR. I, for one, have no interest in seeing Orwell's vision brought to life.

          • I don't think you are being fair in your analysis - many of the problems you state are also problems in the real world but not show stoppers (i.e. the Chinese knock-off is even cheaper). You can also sell a substandard chair for a higher price (And I dare say this is actually a business strategy for some folk :( ) but this doesn't cause our economic system to collapse. Remember that just because the price is not being set by the market, instead by some central agent, doesn't mean that you cannot select betw
            • by c6gunner (950153)

              I'm not sure that you actually read what I wrote, and I'm too tired to try and re-explain it now. I'll get back to you after I've had some sleep - meantime, maybe you could re-read what I wrote and see whether your response actually makes any sense.

          • The other problem is that your system encourages inefficiency and laziness. If you take 10 hours and $5 in raw materials to make a chair, and I take 50 hours and $20 in raw materials to make a shittier chair, I can sell my product for a much higher price even though yours is actually superior.

            It's essentially a "cost plus" model. You do find it occasionally in government/military contracts. As you suggest, it doesn't produce much of an incentive to keep cost down; quite the opposite, in fact.

          • by Hatta (162192)

            The first major problem that comes to mind is that under such a system, an old 26" black-and-white CRT television set would be worth roughly the same as a modern 56" LCD.

            Why is that a "problem". If a B&W TV costs the same to make as an HD LCD, why shouldn't they be priced the same? If nobody wants the B&W TV at that price, don't make them. More people would have better quality stuff under such a system, that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

          • by AmiMoJo (196126)

            If you take 10 hours and $5 in raw materials to make a chair, and I take 50 hours and $20 in raw materials to make a shittier chair, I can sell my product for a much higher price even though yours is actually superior.

            I'll have you know that's my patented business model and any attempt to start your own shitty chair business will be met with litigation!

            Joe Shitty
            Shitty Chairs LLC

          • by Blakey Rat (99501)

            I'd also like to see the "value based on resources" applied to real estate.

            A house built with identical labor, energy, and raw materials at the side of a lake is worth more than one in a valley. I wonder how they rectify this situation, or if they just fall back to the "what people pay for it" explanation.

        • Possible to define? Perhaps, although you are still left with the problem of how you are going to define the value of the resources, or how you will account for the risk of creating new products or services. Practical to use? Not in the slightest. People will pay what they are willing to pay; if you try to regulate it out of existence, you will simply create a huge black market where people will continue to pay what they want to get what they want.

        • by Rhaban (987410)

          Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

          /Mikael

          Say I take some duct tape, and a bunch of the latest nvidia graphics cards.
          I take the main chip off each card, remove all legs and stick them together with the duct tape in the shape of a chair.

          What do I get:
          A - a chair worth several thousand dollars, because it required expensive ressources to make, and my hour of labor isn't really cheap?
          B - a useless pile of crap not worth its weight in dirt, because nobody would ever want to buy it and I can't use it since I'm likely to break my back as soon as I sit on

        • Value can't be pegged to the value of the components, or the energy that went into making the item...That's a core fallacy of socialism, actually.

          If that were the case, all comics would be worth the same, all art would be worth the same, all cars would be worth the same, etc, etc, assuming their component parts had equal value and they took the same time to make.

          Value is completely relative to the consumer. Doesn't matter how "good" it is if no one wants it.

        • by bkr1_2k (237627)

          Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

          /Mikael

          That will only determine its initial value, not the value it has upon resale at some arbitrary future time.

        • Your hypothetical example is merely absurd. Sure, it's possible to put a price tag on something which is equal to the amount of energy, etc it took to produce it, but that doesn't define worth.

          Two examples of why you are wrong:
          1) A company spends all its time and resources smashing rocks to in a specially devised shape which makes them utterly useless. It takes thousands of man-hours to produce one. Is the rock worth anything?
          2) Two companies produce widgets. Company A has one man who can produce 5 widgets

        • by westlake (615356)

          It is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

          If there is no buyer, there is no production.

          Even the goods you produce for yourself come at a price. You can grow your own tomatoes. But you will have to tend the garden.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mano.m (1587187)
        I understand, but my comment was more along the lines of what Buffet says about gold -

        Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.

        Gold at least is a store of value and a safeguard in bad times. A million dollars for a comic book? Cannot compute. To each his own, I guess.

        • by AuMatar (183847) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @06:06AM (#31242664)

          Why is gold? I can't eat it. Can't drink it. Can't hunt with it. Can't heal with it. Can't fuck it. It has some use in electronics, but there's better materials. The only reason to think it has value is because it did historically. If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless- people would want food, ammo, medicine, sex, they'd have no use for gold. The comic book is just as likely to stand up as gold is.

          • by timmarhy (659436)
            Oh so all the people throughout history were just too stupid to realise it was worthless. is that your stunning point?

            gold has 2 properties that you have totally failed to comprehend. it doesn't corrode, and it's rare. i don't expect you to actually understand why this is so important, but lets just leave it at modern civilisation wouldn't exist without gold.

            • by Hognoxious (631665) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @06:30AM (#31242786) Homepage Journal

              it doesn't corrode,

              A small fraction of it is used for that reason - electrical contacts, jewelry.

              Though there are other substances that don't corrode either.

              and it's rare.

              So are John Lennon autographs and George Washington's teeth.

              modern civilisation wouldn't exist without gold.

              Fascinating. Would you care to explain why? I'd say iron's a lot more important. It's even got an age named after it.

              • by prionic6 (858109) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @06:37AM (#31242808)

                Actually, there is a "Golden Age". Closing the circle to the article topic.

              • by nedlohs (1335013)

                Did you really not notice that you used *different* examples. The benefit is that both are true. John Lennon autographs decay, as do George Washington's teeth - plus Washington's teeth are too rare.

                Here's a bigger (off the top of my head, so not complete) set of properties that make gold a good substance to use as a currency:

                * It has the right ballpark rarity - rare enough that small amounts can be worth enough, not so rare that there isn't enough to "go round". You don't need a wheel barrow full to buy a l

            • Sure it would. There are other rare mediums for exchange. We'd have been on the platinum standard, or the silver standard. Nothing magical about gold, in an economic sense.

              Gold served as a medium of exchange, and media, as I shouldn't have to tell someone on slashdot, are irrelevant to the actual exchange.

            • by bkr1_2k (237627)

              Gold isn't that rare. People used to think it was rare (kind of like diamonds though they were wrong there too) because it wasn't easy to get (in most places). That's simply not the case with modern technology. The only truly redeeming quality of gold is that it doesn't corrode.

          • The gold bug is a particular type of troll. Some of them eventually give up on it, after losing vast sums of money investing in gold. Some don't. There's nothing you can do to hurry along any transition that may occur, so don't feed them.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by gijoel (628142)

            If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless- people would want food, ammo, medicine, sex, they'd have no use for gold. The comic book is just as likely to stand up as gold is.

            Don't forget the bottle caps.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by c6gunner (950153)

            If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless- people would want food, ammo, medicine, sex, they'd have no use for gold.

            That's one of the things I loved about Fallout 3 - the idea of using bottle-caps as currency was sheer genius. If we're going to pick arbitrary metals as a system of exchange for our post-apocalyptic world, why not have some fun with it.

            • by wurble (1430179)
              As the AC who posted before me stated, bottle caps were the currency of Fallout 1, a game by Black Isle. They switched in Fallout 2 and it was one of the changes people didn't like. When Bethesda did Fallout 3, they switched the currency back to bottle caps.

              If you're going to call something "sheer genius", please give the credit where the credit is actually due: the folks from Black Isle. I loved Fallout 3 and think Bethesda did a great job, but there is very little in Fallout 3 that Bethesda actually
          • by jonadab (583620) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @07:17AM (#31243070) Homepage Journal
            > If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the
            > dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless

            No, that doesn't follow.

            There have been many situations in history (frequently involving the near-certain imminent collapse of a government) wherein currency rapidly lost all its value. In each and every case, gold was still valuable.

            Gold is inherently rare. Nobody knows how to make counterfeit gold. Unless some brilliant physicist discovers an affordable way to do transmutation, that's always going to be the case.

            Gold also has a distinctive appearance that makes it easy to tell apart from other metals, even at a glance. ("Fool's gold" may look sort of like it might possibly contain gold ore, but you can't refine it and get anything that looks even vaguely like refined gold.)

            These features give gold a durable value that has outlasted innumerable currencies and governments.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by kale77in (703316)

            Factors which make gold valuable are easily identified:

            1: Gold has aesthetic value. It's pretty, and stays pretty by not tarnishing. Like silver but with colour. That makes it a tradable commodity, and then other values attach to it...

            2: Because there's not a lot of it, the price goes up; this then gives it the additional quality of encapsulating high value in small objects that can be carried easily for trade purposes. It concentrates wealth for storage or transportation. This had obvious trade benefits i

            • by bkr1_2k (237627)

              1. Gold definitely has aesthetic value.
              2. You do realize we (the USA and as far as I know all other major economies) are not on the "gold standard" anymore right? Fort Knox doesn't "secure a whole system of currency" and hasn't since the 60s at the latest.
              3. Yes, all of that is true. People won't care about any of it when they're looking for food. They will care about it once they've been fed and have shelter. That's when gold becomes valuable to people, when they have enough of what they need to star

          • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @09:51AM (#31244440)
            I pity the fool who doesn't like gold. You better stop your jibba jabba, sucka.
          • by westlake (615356)

            Why is gold? I can't eat it. Can't drink it. Can't hunt with it. Can't heal with it. Can't fuck it. It has some use in electronics, but there's better materials. The only reason to think it has value is because it did historically. If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless

            Gold is rare and challenging to extract.

            In your post apocalyptic world, the chance that the supply will dramatically increase in your lifetime - or that of

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Draek (916851)

            Which is why the currency standard should be cows. You can eat them, you can drink their milk, you can use their hides for clothing and you can fuck them in a pinch as well, they're the perfect standard to base an economy on.

            Some may suggest women instead, but human milk tastes like crap and human meat can be toxic, so cows are still better. Goats would be another option, but the idea of fucking them is just sick.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by FiloEleven (602040)

            The only reason to think it has value is because it did historically.

            It is a sad fact of contemporary Western culture that this is taken to mean "gold has no real value." All of the rights we enjoy in our society are here for the same reason--they were historically valued. It is woefully ignorant to ignore the thrust of history. You can make a case against the use of gold as a currency, but "it has historically held value" is a talking point for your opposition. After all, *every* currency has value only because we choose to agree that it does. Utility in a currency is

      • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @07:09AM (#31243018)

        That's exchange value, one of many kinds of value. Since Aristotle, people have recognized multiple kinds of value. For example, if a major copper mine shuts down temporarily, the price of copper pots will go up. But you copper pot does not become better at cooking; as a kitchen item, it is no more or less valuable than before, even though it has greater value on the market than before, if you wanted to sell it. Similarly, if a huge new copper mine is opened, your copper pot does not lose any value as a cooking implement, but is again just as good as previously.

      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        Some people are even willing to pay for Microsoft Windows!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      I think this is a case, not where the buyer thinks the comic is incredibly valuable, but where they have so much money that 1 million dollars isn't really that valuable to them.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I say call me when you have issue #0 for sale.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @05:44AM (#31242572)

    Superman is not a man. He is an alien from the planet Krypton. So this is NOT "the first time a man flew without mechanical aid."

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lxs (131946)

      Now you've done it. Superman has gone into a super depression after you've questioned his super manhood. I hope you're super happy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
        No, he's super! Thanks for asking. All things considered, he couldn't be better, I must say.
    • by SirWinston (54399) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @06:28AM (#31242772)

      >Superman is not a man. He is an alien from the planet Krypton. So
      >this is NOT "the first time a man flew without mechanical aid."

      And hence my favorite Tarantino fanboyism, courtesy of Kill Bill Vol. 2:

      Bill: "As you know, l'm quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating. Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology... The mythology is not only great, it's unique.... Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race."

      • >Superman is not a man. He is an alien from the planet Krypton. So
        >this is NOT "the first time a man flew without mechanical aid."

        And hence my favorite Tarantino fanboyism, courtesy of Kill Bill Vol. 2:

        It truly is a well thought out thesis and a stellar monologue, one of my favorite from the Kill Bill series. However I think it suits the Golden Age Superman better, perhaps even the Silver Age Superman.

        Now-a-days they try to make the normal Clark Kent his true personality since that's how he was raised; he was raised on Earth, not on Krypton. In contrast, native Kryptons tend to be more logical and cold; they still love and show emotion but their behavior is seen as alien to humans (or at least Americans

        • by Jiro (131519)
          First of all, the Slashdot article is wrong (since when is that new?) Superman didn't fly in his early appearances. He only started flying after the Fleischer cartoons showed him flying. So it's certainly not true that Action Comics #1 shows a man flying. Second, the Kill Bill line is spoken by a villain and I'm amazed that anyone takes it seriously; the fact that the modern version of Superman is different makes it more wrong, but it was wrong even for the version of Superman he's describing. Clark Ke
      • Loved that. And the dichotomy of Batman and Superman becomes evident:

        Bruce Wayne puts on a costume to become Batman. Superman puts on a costume to become Clark Kent.

        New York is Metropolis by day and Gotham by night.

      • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @10:50AM (#31245058)

        The Shoveler: Oh yeah, well, maybe if we had a billionaire benefactor like Lance Hunt, then we could afford some advertising.
        Mr. Furious: I think that's because Lance Hunt is Captain Amazing.
        Blue Raja: Oh, here we go.
        Shoveler: Oh, don't start that again! Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses.
        Mr. Furious: He takes them off when he transforms.
        Shoveler: That doesn't make any sense. He wouldn't be able to see!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DuckDodgers (541817)
      The linked article does not assert that this is Superman's first flight, or that this is the first super-hero working in the city. Where did the Slashdot author get that? One of the first tag lines for Superman was "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" - writers did not give him the ability to fly until some time in the 1940s, I think, and by that time dozens or hundreds of other flying superheroes had been created.
    • Superman is not a man.

      The trouble is, everyone assumes that "superman" is supposed to be something like "superior human". Superman is in fact an abbreviation. Just like IBM is actually International Business Machines.

      Strong
      Unstoppable
      Powerful
      Empathic
      Red-caped
      Male
      Anthropomorphic
      Neo-earthling

      But it's a lot easier just to say superman.

    • by brucmack (572780)

      Maybe Superman flies while carrying a man?

  • Comic values are down overall. I suspect that AC #1 might get lots more money in a more favorable economy. This one may be a great investment. I remember saving #1 issues of comics in the early 70's. Anyone else notice what crap, worthless comics debuted during that era? ;-)
  • by Punto (100573) <puntob.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @05:57AM (#31242620) Homepage

    not "fly" (at first at least)

    • by 91degrees (207121) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @06:10AM (#31242684) Journal
      You're absolutely right [marvelfamily.com]. Well, presumably he had the retconned ability to fly at the time.

      Not totally convinced by the argument that flight was a cost reduction thing for the animated series though. This was pretty high quality work, and flying would mean they couldn't use the rotoscoping technique they used for most of the animation.
      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        If you watch the original animated shorts, they stick pretty close to the "jumping really high" idea. There are a few scenes that are a little iffy (changing direction in mid-air), and one really iffy incident with a magnetically-attracted asteroid, but-- it's a cartoon, right? You can't expect perfect continuity. The comics writers might have gotten the idea for flight from this, but I very much doubt the animators ever threw up their hands and said, "hell with it! let's just make him fly!!"

        (Hell, in Super

  • as subject, lameness filter, meh

    • the first time a man flew without mechanical aid

      Icarus had wings built for him (by his father Daedalus, says Wikipedia), he didn't fly on his own. But this line ticked me off too, there must be earlier examples of men flying without mechanical aid or even natural wings.

      • by ari_j (90255)
        Please tell me that you knew that Daedalus built the wings for Icarus without resorting to Wikipedia. I really want to believe it.
  • Superman is a terrible hero. He has every major advantage you could ever need to defeat any form of villain on Earth, and because of that there is never any reasonable doubt that he can get through any situation.

    Tied up? Super strength out.
    Locked in a mile deep underground basement - fly / tunnel out.
    Screwed up and someone you liked died - turn time backwards.
    Need to stop missile - use the fricking laers in your eyes.
    Someone sneaking up on you with a crowbar (as if it matters)? Super hearing!

    He has one weak

    • ...

      Screwed up and someone you liked died - turn time backwards.

      ...

      He has one weakness, to an element that might as well be called Unobtainium, but for story reasons keeps appearing in the hands of villains who don't possess FTL or even the means to detect it...they just get really freaking lucky and get some!

      Well the "time" thing was only for the film. The TV series Smallville had a time travel episode, but it was device in the Fortress of Solitude that could only be used once. IE, he couldn't keep traveling to "yesterday" and use it again, which was the plot point because he travel in time resulted in his father dying.

      But that's it. Perhaps in the Golden Age or the early Silver Age he had the ability, but I haven't heard of it in the comics.

      As for K, yeh it was a little silly for decades. Something that w

    • by Jaruzel (804522)

      I am SO with you on this. I've always disliked Superman for many reasons, but mainly
      a) He's WAY overspecced so that no encounter is ever dangerous.
      b) Even though I know his reasons for being created (US Depression era), his Jingoism simply gets on my nerves.
      c) Theres no inner turmoil. In short, he's a dumb Jock who would have never graduated from High School.

      This leaves us with very simplistic stories that fail to engage.

      I'm bias though, because for me, Batman is the MAN.

      -Jar

    • Re:Terrible Hero (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @09:37AM (#31244270) Homepage

      The point of Superman stories -- if they are well written -- is not to make you worry about whether Superman will survive. The point is to make you worry about whether everyone else will survive.

      He's the archetypical protector. The dramatic tension comes from wondering whether he can do his job as a protector. His survival is not important to the narrative.

    • Yeah, well Superman is one of the few superheroes I *do* like. The superheroes I find truly annoying are the ones like Batman who have no special powers and yet act totally contrary to any form of rationality. If Superman is *overspecced* to be a superhero, the the exact opposite is true of Batman and other "regular human" superheroes. They fly in the face of every bit of common sense imaginable. They have no superpowers, but refuse to use guns or other practical weaponry which might actually give them an e

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      You misunderstand.

      Lex Luthor is the hero, selflessly fighting a continual battle against a super-powerful alien invader. Heck, he even was elected President once, showing that he has the consent and approval of the people in his battle.

      Superman comics are more interesting when read that way.

  • by clickety6 (141178) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @08:09AM (#31243372)

    I always liked the way Superman fought for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" implying that whatever the "American Way" is, it doesn't include Truth and Justice ;-)

    • The "American Way" actually wasn't an original part of the phrase, but added first during WWII and then again during the Cold War. Siegel and Shuster were liberal Jews and the early stories reflected that. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/opinion/30lundegaard.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ari_j (90255)
      Don't miss the other obvious implication: Truth and Justice are mutually exclusive.
    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      The only thing it implies is that there's more to "the American Way" than there is to the combination of "Truth and Justice." Of course they never really spell-out exactly what "the American Way" is... but your criticism here is just weird.

      Car analogy: if I say, "cars, motorcycles, and motor vehicles" am I implying that cars are not motor vehicles?

  • by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @08:55AM (#31243778)

    Collectible comics, that is.

    I was heavy into collecting at one time. I still have my #1s of "The Nam" and whatever reboot cycle Supes was going through at the time.

    Here's what put me off the whole business: At that time, the business model of collectible comics dealers was based on ripping off little boys. They'd come into shops with their few bucks and dealers would sell them crap by always hinting that "This is gonna be the next TMNT #1! Buy it now! Only a buck over cover!" I've never known any business that bought stock, put it out, stored it away when everyone realized it was crap and didn't sell, then dragged the same crap out of storage a year or two later, slapped on a higher price, and called it a "collectible". That shit is just ridiculous.

    What broke the camel's back was when I managed, some time after the fact, to piece together what had happened with the Dark Knight hardcovers. When they were announced, you could prepay something like $75 and reserve a signed copy. There were delays and by the time all the signed copies had shipped, the book had totally blown up. The demand for the signed collectible hard cover was huge, with new stock selling for $300.

    Every lousy fucking dealer in Houston that I was able to get info on (except one, A Few Books and Records on the SW side), told every kid who had prepaid for their book that their book never arrived and the order needed to be canceled. They refunded the $75. Some of them didn't wait a week before they stuck that kid's book in the display case with a huge price tag on it.

    With just one exception, every comics dealer I've ever known has been a scumbag.

    • by gad_zuki! (70830)

      When I read comics, I read them for the story. I didnt see them as an investing opportunity. Shame so many did.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      The thing that bugs me most about comics is their ANCIENT distribution model. The high event in comics blogging is the monthly release of the Diamond catalog.

      The only exposure DC and Marvel have outside the local comics shop (if you're lucky enough to even have one) is trade paperbacks that usually end up in bookstores-- of course, they don't bother printing trade paperbacks of most of their material in the first place. Marvel pulls nasty tricks, too, like printing a trade paperback of a popular series, but

  • has anyone read this one yet? Ive only watched the movie, so i thought buying issue #1 would be a good way to figure out more about super-mans. is there more than one? why is his underwear on the outside?
  • <INDY>This belongs in a museum !</INDY>
  • A million DOLLARS?? For this old thing?? Hell, he could have had this copy for half that. Tard.

Between infinite and short there is a big difference. -- G.H. Gonnet

Working...