Email Alertscheckbox YTcheckbox Manage Email Alerts

Batman 457 2nd Prnt UPC : SINGLE GRADED COPY2196

Pages:

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 6

	7 years ago	Post 26 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 3.3K	3.3K JWKyle private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 2
	I just posted it on Dr Carls thread on the other boards. CopperAgeKids I have no clue where and when this book was bought it was probably picked up to fill a hole in my Batman run. I'm a 100% percent sure it hasn't been accounted for someone would have had to break in my house to get a picture of it.
	7 years ago	Post 27 • IP flag post

Collector

2.42K

Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
I see two in the ebay sold search, one at 150bin and a full set of all variants 454 auction. Asking 2k for an 8.5 seems steep 🤢

I'll def keep a lookout anyways at the next few cons.

@DocBrown I completely see your point(s). However I think this rare book isn't known enough yet for us to conclude that it's actually rare yet. What percentage of of collectors know to look for it? Id say very few. What percentage of store boxes and con/flea boxes have been combed through for it so far? Again I'd say just a few percent

and no to the bet , I only gamble with those I know and trust. Tx for the offer lol

The copy that was bought via buy it now is the same copy that has been slabbed at 8.5.

The set of the 5 editions of this book sold in auction for under $500.The 2nd print newsstand is where the value was in that lot, the others are all over the place.

Do a search under Batman 457, comoleted auctions.

You'll see HUBDREDS if not thousands of the other 4 editions listed.

And a grand total of TWO copies of the 2nd print newsstand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SigS
Thanks again Doc. Knowing of your pursuit of the truth and facts, that was very informative. Of course I will still read the link, but it's good to know this going in.

Aside from anecdotal evidence and speculation, why should we take his word for it over the word of someone in the comic book retail business for decades?

I'm not saying this book isn't rare or difficult to find, but I would need a little more hard data and less conjecture and speculation.

7 years ago

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer @DocBrown I completely see your point(s). However I think this rare book isn't known enough yet for us to conclude that it's actually rare yet. What percentage of of collectors know to look for it? Id say very few. What percentage of store boxes and con/flea boxes have been combed through for it so far? Again I'd say just a few percent and no to the bet , I only gamble with those I know and trust. Tx for the offer lol You're ignoring, or are not aware of, several facts surrounding this book: 1. It was a "very hot book" at the time of its publication. The other 5 "variants", as they are now known, were also known very shortly after the book was published. People who have paid attention to this issue were aware of the "000" copies from the time of publication. 2. This book would NOT have been produced for the newsstand, but perhaps for a specific retailer...perhaps Walmart...which had sold out of the first print newsstand copies it received. There was no mechanism in place for newsstand sales (distributed through Curtis Circulation) to order second printings at that time. 3. This book may not have been produced at the same time as the Direct second printing. It probably was, but there's no way of knowing for sure. DC had been reprinting their books for quite some time at this point, to include in their "multi-packs", which were distributed not to newsstands, but to stores like Walmart, K-Mart, JCPenney, and the like. However, since the amount of "collector packs" is generally known, and this book hasn't been found in any of them, they can generally be ruled out as a source. 4. As pointed out before, people have been looking for copies of this book for a very long time. The issue isn't a rare one, and has always been a rather popular one, so it's not like an obscure independent book that does hide in collections and dealers' stock. Despite very strong sales, going back a few YEARS, this book hasn't been "flushed out" in any great numbers. It's Batman, not Strawberry Shortcake. 5. However...while the issue was a hot one at release, it cooled down dramatically, and today can generally be found in dollar bins....meaning multiple copies would more likely have been tossed in the great purges of the late 90's, and any second print newsstands hiding among them had a greater chance of being included. 6. This book never went to comic shops in the first place, so any copies that subsequently made their way there would have been accidental, and, because it was a second printing, and later printings were considered worse than trash for a very long time, the odds are greater that this issue would have been tossed in the trash. In other words: the book never had normal distribution to begin with, and, much like Spiderman #1 gold UPC, this isn't going to be a book that gets "overlooked" in any great numbers, because the numbers were never out there to begin with. When you understand initial and subsequent distribution patterns and the market of the early 90's, you'll understand why that's the case. Therefore, because of all those facts, this isn't a case of "well, they're just hiding in people's collections." No. Like Sandman #75, this was a special case, and didn't follow the rules. Kirk Ticknor, for example, has been looking for these books for a decade, maybe two. Care to guess how many copies of Batman #457 I have...? Probably not, but the answer is "a lot", and I have never run across a copy, even accidentally, in over 26 years. I HAVE run across several copies of Sandman #75 2nd, accidentally. As far as the bet...sure, no problem. I'd be a fool for offering such a bet, too.
	7 years ago	Post 29 • IP flag post

Collector 3.72K	3.72K CopperAgeKids private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer @DocBrown I completely see your point(s). However I think this rare book isn't known enough yet for us to conclude that it's actually rare yet. What percentage of of collectors know to look for it? Id say very few. What percentage of store boxes and con/flea boxes have been combed through for it so far? Again I'd say just a few percent and no to the bet , I only gamble with those I know and trust. Tx for the offer lol You're ignoring, or are not aware of, several facts surrounding this book: 1. It was a "very hot book" at the time of its publication. The other 5 "variants", as they are now known, were also known very shortly after the book was published. People who have paid attention to this issue were aware of the "000" copies from the time of publication. 2. This book would NOT have been produced for the newsstand, but perhaps for a specific retailer...perhaps Walmart...which had sold out of the first print newsstand copies it received. There was no mechanism in place for newsstand sales (distributed through Curtis Circulation) to order second printings at that time. 3. This book may not have been produced at the same time as the Direct second printing. It probably was, but there's no way of knowing for sure. DC had been reprinting their books for quite some time at this point, to include in their "multi-packs", which were distributed not to newsstands, but to stores like Walmart, K-Mart, JCPenney, and the like. However, since the amount of "collector packs" is generally known, and this book hasn't been found in any of them, they can generally be ruled out as a source. 4. As pointed out before, people have been looking for copies of this book for a very long time. The issue isn't a rare one, and has always been a rather popular one, so it's not like an obscure independent book that does hide in collections and dealers' stock. Despite very strong sales, going back a few YEARS, this book hasn't been "flushed out" in any great numbers. It's Batman, not Strawberry Shortcake. 5. However...while the issue was a hot one at release, it cooled down dramatically, and today can generally be found in dollar bins....meaning multiple copies would more likely have been tossed in the great purges of the late 90's, and any second print newsstands hiding among them had a greater chance of being included. 6. This book never went to comic shops in the first place, so any copies that subsequently made their way there would have been accidental, and, because it was a second printing, and later printings were considered worse than trash for a very long time, the odds are greater that this issue would have been tossed in the trash. In other words: the book never had normal distribution to begin with, and, much like Spiderman #1 gold UPC, this isn't going to be a book that gets "overlooked" in any great numbers, because the numbers were never out there to begin with. When you understand initial and subsequent distribution patterns and the market of the early 90's, you'll understand why that's the case. Therefore, because of all those facts, this isn't a case of "well, they're just hiding in people's collections." No. Like Sandman #75, this was a special case, and didn't follow the rules. Kirk Ticknor, for example, has been looking for these books for a decade, maybe two. Care to guess how many copies of Batman #457 I have...? Probably not, but the answer is "a lot", and I have never run across a copy, even accidentally, in over 26 years. I HAVE run across several copies of Sandman #75 2nd, accidentally. As far as the bet...sure, no problem. I'd be a fool for offering such a bet, too. Excellent post.
	7 years ago	Post 30 • IP flag post

Collector 11.12K	11.12K MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 6
	Yes it was Quote: Originally Posted by Logan510 Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer I see two in the ebay sold search, one at 150bin and a full set of all variants 454 auction. Asking 2k for an 8.5 seems steep 🤢 I'll def keep a lookout anyways at the next few cons. @DocBrown I completely see your point(s). However I think this rare book isn't known enough yet for us to conclude that it's actually rare yet. What percentage of of collectors know to look for it? Id say very few. What percentage of store boxes and con/flea boxes have been combed through for it so far? Again I'd say just a few percent and no to the bet , I only gamble with those I know and trust. Tx for the offer lol The copy that was bought via buy it now is the same copy that has been slabbed at 8.5. The set of the 5 editions of this book sold in auction for under $500.The 2nd print newsstand is where the value was in that lot, the others are all over the place. Do a search under Batman 457, comoleted auctions. You'll see HUBDREDS if not thousands of the other 4 editions listed. And a grand total of TWO copies of the 2nd print newsstand. Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS Thanks again Doc. Knowing of your pursuit of the truth and facts, that was very* informative. Of course I will still read the link, but it's good to know this going in.* Aside from anecdotal evidence and speculation, why should we take his word for it over the word of someone in the comic book retail business for decades? I'm not saying this book isn't rare or difficult to find, but I would need a little more hard data and less conjecture and speculation. I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. I thanked Doc for the info he shared, trusting the research he puts behind it. I'll see what else there is to see.
	7 years ago	Post 31 • IP flag post

Collector

16.89K

DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SigS
Thanks again Doc. Knowing of your pursuit of the truth and facts, that was very informative. Of course I will still read the link, but it's good to know this going in.

You're more than welcome, SigS.

I know there are a lot of people who have a lot of motives, some hidden, others not so much, for why they'd want false information to be promulgated, but it's good to be able to refute that information, so people don't make unwise purchases by relying on that false information.

As has been laid out in very exhaustive detail on the CGC board and elsewhere, the information that exists, as well as reasonable extrapolation (that is, if X copies were printed, and Y copies were sold, and Z copies were sold through the Direct market, we can reasonably conclude that X - Y = the number of copies not sold, and Y - Z = the number of copies sold through newsstand distribution), can be used to arrive at conclusions supported with data.

It's not difficult, and the information IS out there, but it does require some effort to get to it...and retailers, in general, are more focused on...you know...retailing, rather than sales data of the newsstand market in which they aren't involved.

Likewise, Rozanski himself readily admits that his numbers are estimates:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck
The astounding statistics are roughly as follows:

(emphasis added)

He should have said "very" roughly, but regardless, they are still estimates.

He then follows it up with this (mis)statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck
While clearly showing a huge shift of Marvel sales over to comics shops, these startling statistics

Those aren't statistics. They are estimations. Those are two different things. Chuck is playing very fast and loose with the language, with no one to call him on it.

http://milehighcomics.com/newsletter/031513.html

By the way...this statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck
To begin, different printings of monthly comics were first created by Ed Shukin, the Vice President of Marketing at at Marvel Comics, in the summer of 1979.

...is false. "Different printings of monthly comics" may have been created by Ed Shukin, and he was no doubt involved, but that occurred in late 1976, not 1979. This is where the "fat diamond" copies come from. And, that program went company wide for all titles in February of 1979....not quite summer, as I suspect most New Yorkers would agree.

And when one part of a statement or article is false, it calls into question everything else. Not that it invalidates everything else, but it's now subject to a much higher level of scrutiny, and rightfully so. In fact, that article by Chuck is FILLED...absolutely FILLED...with errors, based on speculation, that is then repeated as fact.

Example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck
For those of you who go back and look at the earliest Direct Market editions, they have only a simple slash through the bar code. This began in June of 1979. As I recall, this lasted three or four issues, depending on the editor in charge, and the publishing frequency of the title. Soon thereafter, Marvel's highly efficient Editor-In-Chief, Jim Shooter, established a unified program of monthly barcode replacement logos, which lasted until he was deposed in a vicious palace coup, in the summer of 1987. After that, as near as we can tell, individual editors were allowed to create whatever they felt like in any given month. This decentralized decision-making about the bar code boxes resulted in some titles (such as Alpha Flight (1983)) having bar codes, even though they were really on sale only in the Direct Market. This makes documenting the different printings sometimes very confusing...

This is simply not accurate. Like, at all.

First, Chuck doesn't note that a COVER DATE of "June/79" does not mean the book was published in June. It means it was published in MARCH. Quibble...?

Second, the Alpha Flight issues he's referring to were in the 70s and 80s (like #88, for example), and they were ERRORS...the Direct vs. newsstand program had been in place for over a decade by that time, and was not, in any way, a program wherein "editors were allowed to create whatever they wanted." That's total nonsense. The simple fact is, for that title, there are no "Direct editions" for many of those issues. Someone knows why, but thus far, they're not telling.

The info is out there, for anyone who is willing to put in the effort. For those who are not, what can be said?

7 years ago

Collector 2.42K	2.42K Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS Yes it was Quote: Originally Posted by Logan510 Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer I see two in the ebay sold search, one at 150bin and a full set of all variants 454 auction. Asking 2k for an 8.5 seems steep 🤢 I'll def keep a lookout anyways at the next few cons. @DocBrown I completely see your point(s). However I think this rare book isn't known enough yet for us to conclude that it's actually rare yet. What percentage of of collectors know to look for it? Id say very few. What percentage of store boxes and con/flea boxes have been combed through for it so far? Again I'd say just a few percent and no to the bet , I only gamble with those I know and trust. Tx for the offer lol The copy that was bought via buy it now is the same copy that has been slabbed at 8.5. The set of the 5 editions of this book sold in auction for under $500.The 2nd print newsstand is where the value was in that lot, the others are all over the place. Do a search under Batman 457, comoleted auctions. You'll see HUBDREDS if not thousands of the other 4 editions listed. And a grand total of TWO copies of the 2nd print newsstand. Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS Thanks again Doc. Knowing of your pursuit of the truth and facts, that was very* informative. Of course I will still read the link, but it's good to know this going in.* Aside from anecdotal evidence and speculation, why should we take his word for it over the word of someone in the comic book retail business for decades? I'm not saying this book isn't rare or difficult to find, but I would need a little more hard data and less conjecture and speculation. I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. I thanked Doc for the info he shared, trusting the research he puts behind it. I'll see what else there is to see. That's cool, I guess i'm a little more discerning when it comes to believing conjecture presented as "fact". No biggie.
	7 years ago	Post 33 • IP flag post

Collector 11.12K	11.12K MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	Oh, that's why you disagree with Doc. I thought it was for something else. Doc offered an admittedly unscientific experiment to illustrate why he feels Chuck's claim that NS were 15% of the Direct market is inaccurate. Any numbers based not on what is printed but what is sold cannot be dismissed. Can that be denied? How? Chuck's claim of 15% are sales numbers based on estimates outside of his Retail business. Why would that 15% decrease, as he claims, due to being torn up and returned to the Publisher if they're based on Sales numbers? I feel just as comfortable, if not more, in considering what Doc has to say, knowing of his decades of research into comics history, as I do Chuck Rozanski's provided printing claims based on sales numbers, in order to see how I feel on the this, IF I ever draw a conclusion. I may not and probably won't see anything that will lead me to believe in A number, and I'm fine with that. I collect, I don't sell. I have no reason to push this book, and I've no reason to chop it down. I have no desire to own it because it does nothing for me. I wouldn't wipe my backside with it if I [unlikely] found in my den, but I feel no draw to it. I just want the knowledge of it.
	7 years ago	Post 34 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 13.24K	13.24K shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids the copy that was bought via buy it now is the same copy that has been slabbed at 8.5 Ah. Great to hear you guys have buried the hatchet, or at least you're trying
	7 years ago	Post 35 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR

13.24K

shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
You're ignoring, or are not aware of, several facts surrounding this book

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
2. This book would NOT have been produced for the newsstand, but perhaps for a specific retailer...perhaps Walmart...which had sold out of the first print newsstand copies it received. There was no mechanism in place for newsstand sales (distributed through Curtis Circulation) to order second printings at that time

Didnt Curtis start in the 40s, when newsstands were primarily how people got their comics? You're saying they had not figured out how to sell 2nd prints to newsstands by 1990? Wasn't their business model based solely on distributing as many publications as possible?

If that fact you claimed is indeed true, by that logic any 2nd print newsstand distributed by Curtis in the Batman 457 time period would be extremely rare?

My memory may not be the best but I do remember pulling DC 2nd prints off my local Dows newsstand at that time (and yes throwing them away lol)

7 years ago

Collector 2.42K	2.42K Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS Oh, that's why you disagree with Doc. I thought it was for something else. Doc offered an admittedly unscientific experiment to illustrate why he feels Chuck's claim that NS were 15% of the Direct market is inaccurate. Any numbers based not on what is printed but what is sold cannot be dismissed. Can that be denied? How? Chuck's claim of 15% are sales numbers based on estimates outside of his Retail business. Why would that 15% decrease, as he claims, due to being torn up and returned to the Publisher if they're based on Sales numbers? I feel just as comfortable, if not more, in considering what Doc has to say, knowing of his decades of research into comics history, as I do Chuck Rozanski's provided printing claims based on sales numbers, in order to see how I feel on the this, IF I ever draw a conclusion. I may not and probably won't see anything that will lead me to believe in A number, and I'm fine with that. I collect, I don't sell. I have no reason to push this book, and I've no reason to chop it down. I have no desire to own it because it does nothing for me. I wouldn't wipe my backside with it if I [unlikely] found in my den, but I feel no draw to it. I just want the knowledge of it. Disagree with what?
	7 years ago	Post 37 • IP flag post

Collector* 10.54K	10.54K Towmater private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	It is nice to see warring factions work together on something.
	7 years ago	Post 38 • IP flag post

Collector 11.12K	11.12K MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	Quote: Originally Posted by Logan510 Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS Oh, that's why you disagree with Doc. I thought it was for something else. Doc offered an admittedly unscientific experiment to illustrate why he feels Chuck's claim that NS were 15% of the Direct market is inaccurate. Any numbers based not on what is printed but what is sold cannot be dismissed. Can that be denied? How? Chuck's claim of 15% are sales numbers based on estimates outside of his Retail business. Why would that 15% decrease, as he claims, due to being torn up and returned to the Publisher if they're based on Sales numbers? I feel just as comfortable, if not more, in considering what Doc has to say, knowing of his decades of research into comics history, as I do Chuck Rozanski's provided printing claims based on sales numbers, in order to see how I feel on the this, IF I ever draw a conclusion. I may not and probably won't see anything that will lead me to believe in A number, and I'm fine with that. I collect, I don't sell. I have no reason to push this book, and I've no reason to chop it down. I have no desire to own it because it does nothing for me. I wouldn't wipe my backside with it if I [unlikely] found in my den, but I feel no draw to it. I just want the knowledge of it. Disagree with what? The info I thanked Doc for, that you dismissed as conjecture presented as "fact". Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounded like you disagreed with it. Or did you just dismiss it without reading it?
	7 years ago	Post 39 • IP flag post

Collector 11.12K	11.12K MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	Quote: Originally Posted by Towmater It is nice to see warring factions work together on something. Even if they're not the same thing
	7 years ago	Post 40 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS I wouldn't wipe my backside with it if I [unlikely] found it in my den, but I feel no draw to it. If you ever do find it, I'll gladly take it off your hands for you.
	7 years ago	Post 41 • IP flag post

Collector 2.42K	2.42K Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS Quote: Originally Posted by Logan510 Quote: Originally Posted by MR_SigS Oh, that's why you disagree with Doc. I thought it was for something else. Doc offered an admittedly unscientific experiment to illustrate why he feels Chuck's claim that NS were 15% of the Direct market is inaccurate. Any numbers based not on what is printed but what is sold cannot be dismissed. Can that be denied? How? Chuck's claim of 15% are sales numbers based on estimates outside of his Retail business. Why would that 15% decrease, as he claims, due to being torn up and returned to the Publisher if they're based on Sales numbers? I feel just as comfortable, if not more, in considering what Doc has to say, knowing of his decades of research into comics history, as I do Chuck Rozanski's provided printing claims based on sales numbers, in order to see how I feel on the this, IF I ever draw a conclusion. I may not and probably won't see anything that will lead me to believe in A number, and I'm fine with that. I collect, I don't sell. I have no reason to push this book, and I've no reason to chop it down. I have no desire to own it because it does nothing for me. I wouldn't wipe my backside with it if I [unlikely] found in my den, but I feel no draw to it. I just want the knowledge of it. Disagree with what? The info I thanked Doc for, that you dismissed as conjecture presented as "fact". Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounded like you disagreed with it. Or did you just dismiss it without reading it? I'm not disagreeing with what RMA said ( sorry, Doc is Doc Watson ), as a searcher for truth it's important to discern what is fact from opinion.
	7 years ago	Post 42 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	.
	7 years ago	Post 43 • IP flag post

Collector 3.24K	3.24K SpiderTim private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	What about Comichron? That site doesn't have information on this issue?
	7 years ago	Post 44 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	Quote: Originally Posted by Towmater It is nice to see warring factions work together on something. There are no "factions" as far as I'm concerned, and I, as I speak only for myself, am not "warring" with anyone. I reply or do not reply as I see fit, to each comment as it comes, and have no interest in tribalism. It would be a mistake to characterize any of my posts that way, though I concede others do not share my view.
	7 years ago	Post 45 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	.
	7 years ago	Post 46 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	.
	7 years ago	Post 47 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 13.24K	13.24K shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	@DocBrown tx for elaborating on the distribution, very informative However, I still have my doubts as a quick search on ebay turns up the very things I remember buying. 2nt print newsstand. https://www.ebay.com/itm/282353745446 I'll have to dig through my supes boxes as well to see if I hung onto any of them.
	7 years ago	Post 48 • IP flag post

Collector 4.03K	4.03K VaComicsGuy private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	I have a few 457's in my collection. I'll have to dig them out and see which ones I have.
	7 years ago	Post 49 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	.
	7 years ago	Post 50 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	.
	7 years ago	Post 51 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 13.24K	13.24K shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	@DocBrown if nothing else you certainly are a wealth of information
	7 years ago	Post 52 • IP flag post

Collector 11.12K	11.12K MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Yes he is
	7 years ago	Post 53 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	This has been a very edumuhcational thread.
	7 years ago	Post 54 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	And yes I misspelled that on purpose for the youngn's who don't know the reference.
	7 years ago	Post 55 • IP flag post

601525 123 30

« Forum Home

Pages:

1 2 3 4 5

Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.