Silverdream

What's the big deal with that? The only thing I can think of is "early Dreadstar" or "First Full Dreadstar" but wouldn't Epic 1-2 be better options since EI 1/2 are officially noted online as the first app of Dreadstar? Epic #1 is the 1st appearance of his sword, #2 is 1st Vance and Epic #3 is when Vance becomes Dreadstar when he and the sword combine. Yeah, I know that, but since the Sword was actually Dreadstar, Epic 1 is noted as his first appearance in many publications. If Epic 3 had Dreadstar on the cover, it would likely change in the CGC world, but none of them seem to. I can see it now : Epic # 1 " First appearance of That Sword ( Dreadstar )" And then....: Epic # 3 " That Sword becomes dreadstar"

Yeah, wouldnt it be funny if Daredevil came out after hulk 181 and one of the other books is the real " Pre- hulk 181" book. haha. Honestly, this could get confusing. The ad shows Hulk 181 as releasing July 30th. Does that mean it was one of the last November cover dated books that came out in July or were November Dated books released in August and the fist wave just happened to hit on July 30th? hmm.

Just checked most of the other Nov 1974 marvels I have ( about half of them ), not in any of those. Most of the books I dont have are the horror, and reprint books like marvel tales, greatest heroes etc. Anyone else?

There's no difference between the limited and regular edition covers. They just tipped in the centerfold poster (which was done in color and on a different paper stock) on 1500 of them, which was slightly more economical than doing a whole new cover. I am at work and can't check, but I believe the inserted poster was printed only on one side. The way the limiteds progressed were #4 was simply signed and numbered, #5 had the poster and starting with #6 they went to exclusive covers. You are correct, the centerfold for the #5 limited was added to the book after the fact. If you look at both books, there is a visible difference in that there's a third staple on the limited. The top and bottom staples are there and go through all but the centerfold and the middle staple goes through the entire book, including the centerfold. Middle is not present on the normal book. I actually found a #5 limited in a $5 box at the Gem City Con two years ago by spotting the third staple. I just knew there had to be a way! Thanks DR!

There are three editions. The limited edition has a signed and numbered nude centerfold that isn't in the regular. RMA Do you know of any way to tell the Executive copy apart from a regular copy of the 1st printing from the front or back cover? I always assumed they all came from the same print run and the signed centerfold was added after the fact. Anyone know? A lot of people call their books Executive editions when selling, because it says it on the cover, when in fact that is just the price line with U.S / UK pricing and the pricing for the EX copy. Every 1st print has that line.

This book is the grail for me as well. From all the research ive done on this ashcan I keep finding the print run being stated as 100 copies for the first print in 1989 and 50 copies for the second print from 1990/1 , the second print was only included in the Binder edition of CFD 1-3 which was limited to 50 copies. Those are my two grails. The first print ashcan of Sex and death and the binder edition of CFD 1-3.

Jezz, is CGC just giving out 9.8s these days? I think the book is ugly as well, and would never purchase it. However, and I cannot beleive I am defending a book with those defects, in a holder with that grade.... but here we go. CGC looks at entire runs of each paticular book, and if it is determined that there were defects caused by the printer such as bindery tears it wont really affect the grade until you are talking 9.9 and 10's. Apparently, CGC feels the defect is common enough in high grade to let it pass. What really bothers me about this book is the Color breaking staple stress at the bottom stable.

Please stop discussing me. There are plenty of other things to talk about. Thanks. Why not include the quote from the other guy who brought up your name? Why quote only me? Out of Context for the win. I only used your name because it was relevant to the quote I was replying to. You have contributed more to this thread than anyone else. Your name is going to come up, and not just by me. You act as if that is all I was doing, talking about you. There are plenty of other things to discuss in the information I have provided. Focus on that, if you please. I wont bring you up from now on, unless someone else uses your name in a reply to mine ( which is what happened here ) Also, I will try not to sneeze too hard.

I find it really interesting that they mention Liefeld was hot and getting more hot with each issue ( and sadly, he was ) and that people were feeding off the Mcfarlane Mania looking for the next hot artist, yet fail to mention that Mcfarlane actually inked the covers to New Mutants 85 - 89 and 93. They did this with purpose, to get his name on those covers to gain attention and sell even more copies. As for the whole " Longbox full of them " yeah its possible. What I find more probable however, that there are hundreds of dealer longboxes scattered nationwide with runs of New Mutants. 25-50 copies deep for the run from 90-100, with the Extinction agenda crossover books ( and wolverine covers ) being more heavy, and obviously 100. It is possible there is a sealed case or two out there as well, though I would imagine by now the temptation to open it , assuming it was known to exist, would have been too much. Given that many of these dealer longboxes have sat in storage for many years, as RMA has pointed out already, some of those Longboxes have been damaged, mainly by water. We will never know how many, but obviously there are less copies, probably thousands and thousands less than what was printed availible, simply due to severe damage. There are plenty of copies out there, heck I have dozens of the whole run myself, just Like I have dozens of Uncanny X-men 266-285. I was a product of the time. So were many other dealers. I have no intention of selling them unless I run into hard times. Maybe others feel the same way.

Ok, I really don't have much room to talk, but ok Mr. 4 posts. It seems RMA's type of posting style tends to rub off on people. Interesting. Cool, so you worked for a comic store in the mid 90's? Considering as how CVM ceased publication in September of 1995 and were going downhill for about two years because of wizard, I imagine and can actually recall their later issues being less informative and correct. Seeing as how if you even saw a brand new copy of CVM, it was one of their last issues, I dont know how you can put yourself into this conversation. RMA and myself were talking early 90's. A different time, before the glut, before the crash. Your going to assume I wasnt in the comic industry in the 90's because of...? Because you disagree with me? Because I disagree with RMA , in part? What? Yeah man, you got me. I wasnt there filling pull orders for Extinction Agenda, helping reorder the reprints. I wasnt there pulling and repricing and then selling backstock of hot issues like Xmen 201 when it was found out cable was baby Nathan, and that Portacio inked it. I wasnt there in the store, behind the counter watching people getting in fist fights while standing in line for Superman 75 because CNN told them it would put their kids through college. Nope, I wasnt there. It was all a dream. I can teach RMA just as much as he can teach me, if he would just have an open mind. An open mind to the fact that comics and their prices were more regional and what he, experienced, and you for that matter, isnt the end all of the 90's story. I never said CVM was the standard in comic pricing. I never even said they were a highly respected Magazine. I am simply saying, If you are going to laugh at them, laugh at yourself and your friends if any of you are paying multiples of cover for todays hot books, that may flop and become worthless. Think Rachel Rising and Sixth gun, and im sure you can add multiple tiltes to this list in the future, and sure, maybe even take one off the list if it actually takes hold long term.

Honestly, I never said someone did pay that price, RMA just used that book as an example. Your betting against something that cannot be proven, even if someone steps forward and said they did, would you beleive them without a picture and reciept? I would say, if the price guide said $30 at some point, the odds are, someone, somewhere paid it. There are way too many people out there that only care about what they want, immediatly. Ive seen crazy things in my time. I once saw a book sell at an online auction for $85 in 9.4 condition, while the same site had three ( 3 ) copies also listed fixed price also in 9.4 condition for $35 each. One looked better than the auction copy as well. People are strange when it comes to collectibles, and I would not bet against hundreds of millions of people. Again, not that any of it could be proven.

You're comparing 2013-2014 internet sales to price guides of 1990....? That's an interesting perspective......... You miss the point, or dont care to acknowlege it. What I am saying is ( I think you already get it, but you just like being... you. So I will clarify for others ) If you cannot have the discussion without making personal comments, I will have to forego the discussion, which is unfortunate, because I was enjoying the debate. Regarding the discussion: you're comparing apples and orangutans. There is absolutely no comparison to how books came and went back then, for all the various reasons I have outlined, to how they do it now, and I will just leave it at that. You have also invented statements, and attributed them to me, when I clearly said something entirely different. That's dishonest. I fail to understand why people cannot disagree and discuss something without getting their emotions involved and making it personal. There is absolutely no need to take personal shots at others, simply because they don't agree with you, or you think they're being obtuse, or they just don't seem to "get it" the way you do, and no matter how "innocent" you think those shots may seem to you. I suppose it's because I lack the perspective you suggest I get. Take care. Come now RMA, surely you have thicker skin than this. I have read a small fraction of your thousands of posts, and you have had people tear into you a heck of a lot more than anything ive said. I say " your just being you" and now im some super insulting troll that you dont care to talk to? Here is where I stand. You are a very smart person. You obviously have been into comics for decades and take it very seriously. You know more about comics than most people. You want people to understand comic history, and generally you do a wonderful job conveying that. All great, and everyone is better for it. The opportunity I have is you are a " debater " you come across as always being the wiser person, in a " my experience is law" kind of way. Thats why I was being sarcastic. ANYTHING I say will be quoted, sometimes out of context, broke down into a million peices, and the whole point is lost. That's frustrating. If you want to be in a discussion with me, please quote my entire post, or at least whole paragraphs, and make a thoughtful response in normal text. Dont quote parts of paragraphs, in the proccess breaking the context of it. So, to the discussion, if you care to continue. I like to think im comparing 90's apples to 14's apples, and not food to animals. Dont be so outlandish. Books sold for different reasons, yes, but speculation was a large part back then as well. The reasons might be different. The 90's were driven more by hot artists and then gimick covers than anyting. Most of the stories were atrocious. Today its more movies/tv/writing. That doesnt mean both era's are not affected by the others " standard of the time". Campbell covers are hot today and nobody cares about the inards. At the same time, There was some movment with TV and movie buzz. I distincly recall The 1987 flash series selling better. People came into the shop that had no pull list, and wanted flash that season. The batman movies helped push a 1st app of Mr Freeze I had been holding for years, yep Arnold was horrible, but people got excited none-the-less. Heck, even the turtles cartoons helped sell TMNT adventures, not in a crazy speculation way persay, but it helped sales. I will note however that a first printing of TMNT adventures # 1 was hot back then, mainly because of the turtles mainstream appeal, which was related to TV and Cross-collectability. It sold to comic and non-comic buyers for a premium. This was speculation, hoping it would go up in value more. One thing has always remained constant in comics. 1st appearances. Whether its a magazine telling you to buy it because " Silver sable" is getting a new ongoing so go buy ASM 265, or a website telling you Sixth Gun has been optioned for TV. People are and were buying based on information, how that information was gotten, is the only real difference in my mind. Was all the information in CVm or Wizard as reliable as now? Heck no. It was not all made up out of thin air either. Your main argument is that none of the magazine price guide hype was real. Their prices were made up, and if any comic dealer was respectable or wanted to actually SELL a book, they didnt charge CVM or Wizard prices, which makes their ( the monthly guides ) prices complete fabrication. I think you are incorrect. In fact I know so, as in my area there were 5 shops and all used CVM , and collectors paid those prices daily. In fact, some people paid more than CVM prices for certain books they thought would get hot, and did a few months later ( which was reflected in CVM ) Comics didnt always sell for full book, but the baseline price of a book was gotten using CVM and to a lesser extent Overstreet. I knew many dealers that referenced both and chose a middle ground. There is no real way to prove it RMA, I think thats the problem here. You ideas that CVM had a few ( I read it as back alley ) dealers on speed dial, is no more provable than me saying they had more dealer info ( and some respectable ) and they attended or at least got reports from cons. Your experience is yours, and mine is mine. I think there is a middle ground of facts from back then, that exist in both our opinions. The difference is, I can admit to that. Speaking of the cons. There were a LOT more small cons back then. Even the big cons were small. They were the Ebay of the times. Much of the books that were hot changed from region to region. Thats why if you open up a CVM you will find Market reports by region. All of us will have different recollections of what was selling hot in our area. So to end this post, I will say again. I get irritated when people talk trash about CVM or wizard , and its prices and how absurd they were ( all hindsight ) and how nobody paid those prices, it was all a joke. The only difference from now and then is you can prove it, and very easily. It dosnt make the prices some books have attained recently and less rediculous or absurd than compared to back then.

You're comparing 2013-2014 internet sales to price guides of 1990....? That's an interesting perspective......... You miss the point, or dont care to acknowlege it. What I am saying is ( I think you already get it, but you just like being... you. So I will clarify for others ) The sixth gun sales prices are what they are, and you can look at them for yourself. It was a cover price book that blew up, and then went downhill fast. If all of these sales were averaged month to month and put into a magazine and then 20 years later someone looked at it, the reaction would be the same. "How absurd, I can get this for next to nothing now, what were they thinking" and so on. The problem you seem to have with what im saying is... The average sales on Ebay are fixed, and 100% true, while the magazines were somewhat guessing. Well sure RMA, I agree. I dont agree, however, that they just " Made up" all their prices. That doesnt change the fact that people paid those prices. I just cant say " go to this website" and prove it, so it didnt happen according to you. If it did happen it was an annomaly and the person was a fool. Well, imo all those people that paid all that money for SG were suckers. That doesnt mean they didnt spend that money. It's just easy to show. Yes the price guides affected the hobby. People had to get their information from somewhere. Wizard touted books heating up, and then magically the book was priced higher a few months later. Was that just all made up internally by them? According to you, yes. I say people actually read that, and then went out looking to buy the books! And then retailers reported that back to wizard and CVM ( albiet to a lesser extent, as I beleive Wizard had more contacts ) Imagine that! I suppose the phenomenon of people talking about a book on these boards and then the book starting to rise on eBay is new, and nothing at all like the speculation by CVM or wizard staff back in the day. No, today we can prove that the speculation works. * sarcasm warning * Back then it was a massive conspiracy by CVM and Wizard and to a lesser extent overstreet to dictate comic prices. Nobody actually bought books at those prices. When Wizard put a book on their hot watchlist, and then a few months later it went up in value, nobody actually went out and bought the books right, at least not at those prices!? Nobody paid a premium because they HAD TO HAVE IT before it was worth a car. It was just wizard attempting to prove their worth and not be wrong. Come on RMA, people bought those books because of what wizard said and that demand caused retailers to raise their prices, just like when people talk about books on these forums and ebay prices rise. Oh wait, I forgot ... if you didnt buy them or you didnt see anyone buy them, nobody did. My recollections are ancedotal, yours are facts.

Wow, you deleted that first reply kinda fast. And here I was going to tell you I would bet my sons life that at least one person bought a X-men comic because of the 2000 movie.

I have those CVMs, somewhere. Man, was that mag a wreck. Remember when Flash the TV series premiered in the fall of 1990? All of a sudden, Flash #1 (1987) was a $30 book! Jumping back a few pages... I am trying to figure out why this is so hilarous to you RMA. A long time popular character gets a T.V. show and CVM raised the price because they were getting reports of the 1987 Flash # 1 selling hard and fast. Is that not what is happening today? Every movie announcment, every TV show whisper and books ARE... and truely so, going from cover price to $20-150 books overnight. Look at preacher raw # 1's NM's selling for $10-20 went to $75-200 in less than two weeks. There isnt even a show yet! Overstreet will adjust... NEXT YEAR. Everyone makes fun of CVM and Wizard magazine and all the " crazy and silly " prices they had. I think that during that time, they actually did well with the hot books. I don't think they made prices up on a whim like many of you seem to believe. They had hundreds of contacts nationwide and attended many large shows to figure out what was heating up, and adjusted their prices promptly. Wasnt that the purpose of a monthly price guide? Im calling everyone out here in this thread and on these forums. You are living, right now, in the middle of a CVM, or wizard. You are buying and selling books in an era that fluctuate hundreds of percent in few days, at times. Look at the 6 month sales history on Ebay for some of the moderns of recent years. Absurd. Look at Bronze and Copper 1st appearances that have languished for decades, straight blowing up.... Raw NM copies of Xfactor 6 going from $10 to $50+ in 6 weeks. Everytime I hear someone making fun of these old price guides " haha, look at this 1993 issue of Wizard saying XYZ book is worth $50 ! I can get these for 50 cents now" it makes me cringe. We don't need these price guides anymore, because we can see what books are " going for" instantly on Ebay. We can see upward and downward trends. Here is a modern twist to CVM. The Sixth gun # 1 was a cover price book. NBC optioned and ordered a pilot, it went through the roof. NM # 1's raised in price 3,000% in two weeks. It fell off a cliff when NBC passed. It is still holding some value because people still want to beleive they have the next walking dead in their boxes. If nothing happens in a year or two, it will fall to $10 or less for a NM raw copy. If you looked at the sales history, it looks like a huge hill. Unfortunatly, that huge spike has now scrolled off of ebays 3 month completed listings, so we cant even point a finger and laugh. The only real difference between now and then is the internet. What a book is " going for" is pretty much set in stone by ebay sales, as it covers the whole of the collecting community for the most part. If CVM listed a book going up 3000% in a few months, It may not have applied to your " neck of the woods". However, in general, they did fairly well IMHO. Sorry for the rant,and I dont mean to come off as rude, that is not my intention. I just get tired of the CVM/Wizard was absurd/stupid/crazy/insane comments. Get some perspective folks.

There was a discussion here a few months ago about the #21 second print- the consensus was that it doesn't exist, at least not a printed issue with "second print" on the indicia. Of all the collectors here, like silent master who has essentially every GI Joe ever printed, no one has apparently even seen one. So it looks like there is none, but the confusion as to why it's printed as a third print is unclear. It is interesting that I have recently seen a rare 3-pack of #21,22,23 showing up on EBay. The #21 cover looks the same, but I wonder if this is somehow the "second print"? I would have to assume that someone would have found a loose copy of those 3-pack 21's by now, whether they knew it was from a 3-pack or not, and we would know by now if it was listed as a 2nd printing or not in the indicia. With that said: If there is a second printing of G.I. Joe 21, It is not listed in the indicia, and there are no differences in the printing, and it has a white spiderman face. Also, if there is a second printing it would have to have been printed BEFORE issue 23 ( within 45 days of the release of the 1st printing of 21 ). Otherwise it would have a black spiderman face in the UPC as well. There are only two options here. 1.) Marvel did indeed print a 2nd print of 21, and did not include it in the indicia, whether on purpose or accidentally, and it would have had to have been a nearly immediate reprint. 2.) There was no 3rd print, and the printer accidentally marked the 2nd print as 3rd. Both options are possible, option 2 is the most probable. You would think with all these avid Joe collectors someone would have noticed something different in the covers of the white spiderman UPC copies if some of them were printed at differrent times. ( color, tone, font, staples, paper, cut...something )

What everyone must realize here is that the black costume Spiderman did not exist Prior to May 1984. Starting at issue 23 of G.I. Joe ( May 1984 ) the white webbed Spidey head was replaced with the black Spidey head for 1st printings. What this means is all 2nd printings of G.I. Joe prior to issue 23 that have the Black spiderman head were printed AFTER ( timeframe wise ) the first printing of issue 23, which is why they have the black spiderman head. All G.I. Joe issues numbered 22 and under with a black spiderman head are 2nd printings. They have to be, because it didnt exist before that. Not true, GI Joe 21 is a 3rd print. You completely ignored what I was saying so you could say " not true" I am 100% correct. yes true. Any book prior to issue 23, with a black spiderman face is a reprint, a 2nd or later printing that was produced after issue 23. Maybe I should have made sure to put in " 2nd OR LATER printing " But I would hope you could figure that out from the context of what I was saying. I was saying any book prior to issue 23 with a black spiderman face is not a first print copy of Gi Joe. On a side note, lets talk about that Gi Joe 21 3rd print. Has anyone ever found a 2nd print copy of 21? I thought there was a concensus in the Joe community that it doesnt exist. If that is the case, the only logical conclusion would be that it was mislabled as a third print, and is actually a 2nd printing, which would then ... technically... make me correct without any clarification.

It's funny that I just had this conversation in another thread, here is my take. Tales of G.I. Joe # 2 is a first printing..... It's a first printing of " Tales of G.I. Joe # 2 ". It has a completly different title on the cover and indicia. Yes, it re-presents material from G.I. Joe # 2, but in my world, and overstreets, and any other comic database, it's a completely different title/ book. Think Marvel Tales. Marvel Tales represents Amazing spiderman in order, but they are not second printings, nor are they reprints. They are first printings of " Marvel Tales" which happens to re-present material from Amazing Spiderman, and sometimes not in their entirety. In my world, a 2nd printing and a reprint mean the same thing. A second printing is a reprint of the exact book, with the same title and idicia. Some are noted, some are not. Thats why they are hard to figure out at times, because the title and Indicia are the same ( see where im going here? ) That makes us look for other differences like prices, font sizes, Upcs and ads... So we can find signs if it came from the original print run, or a.... Second print run...a reprint... I think 2nd and later printings are the same thing as saying reprints and I think when the material from these books are put in other titles or collected volumes they should be considered a Re-presenting of.. I think the term reprint has been used wrong for decades. Thats just my take on it, anyhow. Proceed how you wish. There is no right or wrong here, just crazy fun comic book opinions.

What everyone must realize here is that the black costume Spiderman did not exist Prior to May 1984. Starting at issue 23 of G.I. Joe ( May 1984 ) the white webbed Spidey head was replaced with the black Spidey head for 1st printings. What this means is all 2nd printings of G.I. Joe prior to issue 23 that have the Black spiderman head were printed AFTER ( timeframe wise ) the first printing of issue 23, which is why they have the black spiderman head. All G.I. Joe issues numbered 22 and under with a black spiderman head are 2nd printings. They have to be, because it didnt exist before that.

Some things are not as easy to breakdown as you would think. As soon as you start leaving things out, people start making false assumptions attempting to fill in the gaps. But yea, blocks of text look scary.

Technically, you're correct. All later printings are, technically, reprints. But historically, that doesn't really bear out. Reprints have been done for 50+ years in comics (DC Annuals, Marvel Tales, etc.) In Marvel Tales #1, the Spiderman story in Amazing Fantasy #15 is reprinted. So is Hulk #1, JIM #83, TOS #39, among others. It is a classic reprint. But it is not a second printing of each of those books. It is a reprint of multiple stories from multiple books. And though the tradition of reprints occurred at Marvel and DC throughout the 70's and 80's, either in Treasury format, or Digest format, or Fireside format, or Baxter format, those are all properly classified as reprints, rather than "XXX printings" of individual books. Books that were reprinted due to immediate initial demand did not occur until the late 70's (Star Wars), and they didn't really label them "XXX printings" until the 1980's (and even then, it wasn't based on initial demand.) And if they were reprinted in a slightly different format, 10-20 years after their initial release (a la Spideman #101), or like the Marvel Milestone books, can they really be called "XXX printings"...? Or are they just generic reprints? Overwhelming demand sending books back to the presses was a very scarce event in comics until the early 90's. In fact, the very first "XXX printings" based on demand were the early Marvel Graphic Novels of 1982-1983, which weren't regular comic books, then Indie Black & Whites from 1984-1986 (Turtles, Fish Police #1, Boris the Bear #1, Dark Horse Presents #1, and even some early Indie Color books like Grendel #1 (2nd series) There were earlier oddballs, like Elfquest magazine. And sure, there were the prestige format books like Dark Knight #1-3, Killing Joke, and Longbow Hunters #1, but these were...well...prestige projects, not regular monthly books. The first regular Marvel to go back to the presses to meet initial demand...ever...was Ghost Rider #1, May of 1990! The first DC? Lobo #1 from Nov of 1990. (Undergrounds are the exception. They called themselves 2nd, 3rd, 4th printings going back to 1968 or earlier.) The fact is, other than Star Wars (which was a phenom unto itself), Marvel and DC's conventional wisdom regarding reprinting sellouts was to package them in a trade (as they did with Dark Phoenix, nearly 4 years after release, as the relatively new trade paperback format, a continuation of the Fireside series of the 70's.) They simply did not reprint single issues. The big initial sellouts of the 80's....Thor #337, Spidey #252, Man of Steel #1, Batman #428...books that were instant hits...,did not go back to press as single issues. In fact, of those four, the only one that went back relatively fast was Batman #428, and that was the trade "A Death In The Family" that was printed and released by December of 1988, less than two months after #429 hit the stands (when DC realized what a monster hit they had.) That's a large part of the reason that these books RETAINED their value...books like Spiderman #121 and 122 (which were, essentially, the first "megahit sellouts" in comics), Howard the Duck #1 (which had shenanigans going on with it), later Byrne X-Men, New Teen Titans, Simonson Thor, etc etc etc....these books were not reprinted for a long time, and when they were, it was in a completely different format. Yes, there was the Thundercats #1 (which was second printed for multi-packs) and yes, there was the GI Joe books (again, for multi-packs), but these were based on subsequent demand for the books, several years down the road. Marvel didn't begin reprinting GI Joe until 1984-1985, two to three years after the originals. And yes, they later printed the hell out of Batman #397-432 and Byrne Superman, going up to six (and maybe 7) printings for some issues, all the way from 1988-1990. But those weren't because the originals were sellouts (there are no later printings, for example, of Batman #400, 404-407, 417-420, or 426-429.) No, second printing, third printing, fourth printing, et al for single "hot" issues...entirely a 90's invention as far as DC and Marvel are concerned. And the variations (Roman numerals, logo color variations)...same thing. (Anyone feel free to correct me if I've gotten any details wrong.) RMA, thank you for posting all of that information. This is stuff most people do not know and im sure it is greatly appreciated. I would also like to appreciate you, since I do not have to post something similar now. I will however, resond to some of your information. I helped order comics for my LCS in the 90's The reprints from 1990-1992 were interesting. I remember November and December 1990 were heavy months for this stuff. Extiction Agenda was a big one, so was the Art Adams FF run. Anyhow, to our discussion. Besides for a history lesson, prestige format and Graphic Novels really have no reason being in this discussion. Other than the fact Marvel and DC both were marking those as 2nd or later printings all the way back to the early 80's and that they showed they were willing to do it ( reprint) if they didnt get the print runs correct. We are talking about monthly comics here, so special mini series and prestige should be looked at differently. Trades and classic reprints like marvel tales and reprint annuals Marvel Triple Action, Marvels greatest comics etc, are different because they had differrent titles, half of the time they had multiple stories in each issue as well and/or different covers. TPBs are also different as they focus on complete stories from multiple issues. Again, we are talking about single book, monthly reprints. To me, there is a difference between reprinting a story, and reprinting a book. Even if the ads are different, if the attempt is to use the same title and issue number on the cover and Indicia then its a reprint of that single issue, as reprint of the exact book, not just the story. Indipendant publishers were reprinting single issue comics based on demand for decades, and marking them as such. They had to, they couldnt afford to overprint, doing so meant they lost money, and possibly any profit. While it is true Marvel and DC did not get into this much besides multipack reprints, I think we both know it is because they were overproducing comics at an exceptional rate. The direct market was a huge boom to the print runs. No returns meant they were less scared to print extra copies, and the availibility on newstands started shrinking. As with everything, times change. Between 1980 and 1988 the price of a comic went from .40 cents to $1.00, retail stores could not order as many books as they once did. Print runs got a little smaller, I would be guessing, but I would say they dropped double digits percentage wise by late 1989 comparted to say 1984. Combine that with the fact the speculation era was just getting started, it was a perfect situation for regular issue reprints to start. Marvel Knew exactly what they were doing. The cost to produce comics started to get more expensive, and they decided the 1990's were going to be like the 1970's. Starting new titles with new characters. The difference was, instead of taking a risk overprinting, they decided to go with reprints, and expanded it to hot books as well. Think about it. Just in 1990 Ghost Rider # 1, New Warriors # 1, Spiderman # 1 all went to 2nd printings. By 1992 they started reprinting the first appearances of characters with new # 1 books. Silver sable # 1 came out June 1992 and the reprint for ASM 265 ( the first app of silver sable ) came out... June 1992 as well. Morbius the Living Vampire came out in September 1992 and the reprint for ASM 101 ( first Morbius ) was released Spetember 1992, the same month. By 1992 the speculation era was going pretty strong and all the publishers were trying to take advantage. No just by reprinting the first appearance of silver sable, but by also hooking up silver sable # 1 with a foil enchanced cover and charging double for it. When I speak of 2nd printing or later reprints, I am talking about regular issue monthly comics. To be clear: I do not diferentiate between: Star Wars # 1 reprints, Thundercats # 1 reprints, Transformers # 1 reprints, GI Joe Reprints, Ghost rider ( 5/1990 ) # 1 reprints, Spiderman ( 8/1990) Reprints, New Warriors ( 7/1990) # 1 reprints, TMNT # 1 reprints, Or even Zap Comics # 1 reprints. Edit: I realize the reasons for the extra prints were different, I just dont see a big enough difference to classify them differently. Edit: To answer your question about the Marvel Milestones, or even DC millenium editions, what does the Indicia say? Does the book LOOK like a 2nd printing or something else? To me they look like a special series dedicated to reprinting classic stories, Not a reprint of the BOOK. Sure it's all there, but the Indica says Marvel Milestone edition, and the cover is titled marvel Milestone edition, with a thumbnail picture of original cover. ASM 101 is different in that it Indicia says Amazing spiderman # 101. The book is meant to be a copy of the original minus adds and cover price. After thinking about this pretty hard, I dont really think there is a right or wrong here, its more up to a persons preference. My preference is, if its a single monthly " reissue" and being passed along as that, even JC Penney reprints, its a 2nd print/reprint all the same. Regardless of what we like to call them, I dig collecting them!

Ah, there you have it, you answered my question RMA. I thought of that and went digging but I could not find it. Agents 6 is the first 6 pages of WD # 1. It makes much more sense to call DCCP # 26 a 1st appearance with an original story. I still have trouble completely accepting it, but I suppose I can let it go!

Yes and yes. I really wish DCP #26 didn't have that NTT preview in it and the first appearance would of ended up being NTT #1. I bet it would go for a lot more the DCP 26 does if it did. I personally find it odd that DCCP # 26 is considered the first app. of the New Teen Titans. Doesnt it fall under the same " preview" umbrella as all the other previews that nobody cares about/argues against being a 1st app? Agents # 6 is a preview of walking dead , Rick is in that preview ( cgc calls it a preview of walking dead ) Walking dead # 1 is listed as Rick Grimes 1st app by cgc. DCCP # 26 ( cgc calls this 1st app of NTT in preview , huh?) New teen Titans # 1 ( cgc gives a BLANK for description, huh? ) People pay money for CGC, I understand they are in the service of grading books, but if they are going to continue to put this information on books, they need to understand that people are paying for these " credits" and they need to start being consistant. It's kinda hard to ignore a 16-page story. 6 pages vs. 16 pages. Both would be considered a first appearance if we are talking about a new character in a regular books storyline. 1-2 page previews you might be able to use this argument as those could be considered " Cameos" , but not here. I went digging trying to find my copy of DCCP#26 but cant atm, it is the same story as NTT# 1 correct? Im sure if I tried I could find other 16 page previews from around that time ( dc did this a lot back in the early 80's ) that Cgc ignores as a first app. Im sure there are 7-15 page previews that are ignored as well. Im just curious as why this one is different. Im really not trying to start a trend away from this book, Im really just trying to figure out why this " preview" is a 1st app, and others are not. Page count doesnt really make sense. It's still a preview, and most previews are long enough to get an idea of the type of book they are trying to push sales on, 4-8 pages normally, which in most cases will qualify is a first appearance.

I never thought I would see the day that collectors would break down and put "2nd, 3rd prints" etc into a different catagory than " reprints" To me they have always been the same thing. Whether it's because the company did not anticipate orders properly and produced more books within a month, or saw a 5 month old book, or even a 20 year old book get hot and produced more. They have always been " reprints" to me. The 2nd 3rd printing designation only showing which " run on the press " they came from. Dont get me wrong, Im not arguing the collectability of these books, I dig them. I just dont get differentiating them. The fact remains the company ran the press on these books a 2nd or 3rd time because they knew they could make a $. Direct, newstand, multipacks, whatever. The only re-produced books that I can really see the argument for seperation is the Marvel legends inserts, as many of them have completely different covers. Even saying that, they would still go into my " reprint boxes".

Yes and yes. I really wish DCP #26 didn't have that NTT preview in it and the first appearance would of ended up being NTT #1. I bet it would go for a lot more the DCP 26 does if it did. I personally find it odd that DCCP # 26 is considered the first app. of the New Teen Titans. Doesnt it fall under the same " preview" umbrella as all the other previews that nobody cares about/argues against being a 1st app? Agents # 6 is a preview of walking dead , Rick is in that preview ( cgc calls it a preview of walking dead ) Walking dead # 1 is listed as Rick Grimes 1st app by cgc. DCCP # 26 ( cgc calls this 1st app of NTT in preview , huh?) New teen Titans # 1 ( cgc gives a BLANK for description, huh? ) People pay money for CGC, I understand they are in the service of grading books, but if they are going to continue to put this information on books, they need to understand that people are paying for these " credits" and they need to start being consistant.