bababooey

These exceptions are due to the formatting of the cover differing in ALL cases for those books, there is no title box present on the left of the Marvel Comics Group banner of these titles, there's no banner at all for Spidey Super Stories. That "title box" area was part of the cover format even before the MCG banner which didn't start until $0.20 pricing and that area was obscured repeatedly by "still only" pricing formatting and this area was differentiated from the banner by a lack of colour around the start of the Whitman era. It disappeared for good after the "still only 35 cents" era when I contend a "national direct market" began. Some general comments on the descriptors by timeline, clearly the changes from '72-79 are great but I think we misuse "newsstand" when describing the "standard" US versions. I contend that for clarity pre-79 you have standard versions and the exception is the whitman (or early direct) that we're discussing in this thread....after 1979 you've got newsstand and direct (national). Also the appearance of the UPC box on the cover only preceded the Whitman era by less than a year & those UPC boxes contains the "barcode", later printing & distribution distinctions by slashing, replacing with art or reformatting the "barcode" are all on the direct market side.

2, 4, 5, 1, 3

thanks for the link I've been abusing the "mark forum as read" option lately and totally missed that thread

That pic is from well after the period being discussed. No one has provided any proof that comic stores sold single copies of the whitman/early direct issues distributed between 77-79. I'm sure it happened in some limited cases since I think this was a period of trial and error, I personally bought a bunch of 25 cent giant sizers and other books from 1975 (ASM 149, Avengers 138, DD 124 etc..) in 1977 back when I was buying everything in three packs that I could get my hands on.

I knew that those numbers that are frequently shared only represented a portion of the direct market but the clarification is a good reminder to anyone unfamiliar with the source data. We also need to remember that in 1994 the newsstand market was still relevant, not thriving, but not dead either. Is there a year to year or month to month estimate of Cap City's market share? That might help people to at least get these Cap City numbers 'closer to' the NA sales estimates (comichron/icv2) that people in the modern forum are more familiar with. also, you said 'print run'

Argument? I'm not trying to rename an era when books were being published or correcting people using a term that has been used and accepted for decades....I'm nostalgic for the era because it was my gateway to the hobby, nothing more than that, I don't care if we agree on "direct market whitmans" since all parties agree that Whitman was the largest early direct customer...why anyone would want to call them "direct adjective adjective" when there is clearly a difference from this era to the nationwide direct market era where EVERYTHING is readily available in the direct version. However, when you and @RockMyAmadeus call them "Direct Market Experimental Program" issues in the future, I'll make it my personal goal to follow those discussions on here and they'll look like this. RMA: No, these are DMEP copies because...paragraph paragraph paragraph Lazyboy: yeah, what he said was right and you all are stupid Random boardie: what? bababooey: they're talking about Whitmans Everyone: oh okay thanks

Here's some pics I pulled from another thread when looking up past discussions....I bought one of every one of these and haven't seen copies of these in bags for years.

Thanks for the example of the "mindless parroting" I wasn't clear what you meant when you mentioned it earlier but this helps.

Where is the bag it was sold in? https://blog.comichron.com/2010/04/jim-shooter-on-marvel-whitmans-direct.html And while you keep trotting out the Tarzan 2 as an example of the squashed Diamond prior to 1979, that was explained to you years ago...read and ignore it again.

I don't have any problem with this idea, and have said it before. The problem, however, is that when they were made, they weren't made just for Western, and there's no indication whatsoever that they were. The cover markings exist to prevent distributors from returning the books to Marvel for credit, which they weren't allowed to do because they'd bought them as non-returnable for a better discount. And what is that method of distribution called....? The Direct market.

If a group of people use terminology that is universally understood to describe something specific why would it be beneficial to abandon this 40 year old descriptor to lessen the distinction conveyed by the widely used term? I'm okay with people using widely understood terms on these boards.

Wrong forum.

The markings were created to differentiate non-returnable versions from newsstand, there is no debate that their intention was to use these for the direct market...but the beta customer and by far the largest customer was Whitman/Western. There's no evidence I've seen posted that these were the copies distributed in bulk for the direct market, whatever you imagine the '73 to 79 direct market to be at the time was likely serviced through the supply of newsstand copies. If you wish to ignore the many differences from this era by grouping pre-national distribution copies with everything after that's up to you. There's no need for anyone to provide documentation to you, that's silly posturing on your part, we've all seen the bagged three packs that were used at the time...show me a pic of dealer back issues with a dozen fat diamond versions. Also, I just looked and both MCS & Mile High use the term "Whitman" to identify these for collectors who are looking to buy or sell them. So whether it is right or wrong in your mind, the colloquial and industry accepted reference to the Marvel books from this era is: Whitman

I figured there was a show coming up and looked the other day but my google skills failed me, all I saw was the two May shows. Thanks for the pics BUTM

Well just to avoid a derail, the 3-4K 'print run' mentioned earlier (from comichron) is the estimated north american sales and in reality has nothing to do with newsstand copies printed or distributed. The comic newsstand outlets lost the collectors and continuous readers to the direct market years earlier so gimmicks like these and the no number DD/Marvel Unlimited newsstand issues like the one pictured earlier were targetting casual readers, impulse buyers and former reader/collectors.

You can go with that if you like but I figure these repackaged collection issues from that time (like ASM 648-650) were probably created with a number 1 on the cover and a selection of introductory issues FOR newsstand customers & probably wouldn't be very appealing to many LCS customers. I don't dispute that they might be tough to find and I've got both versions of the ASM one but my opinion would be that these are probably equal to or more common than other 2011 newsstand issues and may have even been part of some attempt to cater to that newsstand market.

I never thought Whitmans were reprints. Your assumptions are wrong about "stockpiling", the sales of three packs in the summer of '77 were month to month and only delayed by about two months, three months at most. I never bought a 3 pack after that fall when I found my local newsstand outlet. Here's my buying timeline using ASM, in the summer I bought 169 to 172, in early July issue 170 was the "current" 3 pack issue before Sept I'd bought 172, in November I bought 176 at my local stationery store. Mind you these timelines are Canadian but I don't think they (western) were sitting on months and months worth of books. The whole reasoning for the changes to the cover format were certainly made with the larger direct/LCS market in mind but the era prior to '79 is not the same as the later more plentiful direct editions. I don't have any stake in identification by CGC, my first issues from the summer are mostly beaters with a mark in the comics code box to indicate I read it but personally as a nostalgia driven collector I'd rather have a 9.8 ASM 170 Whitman than a 35 cent variant. Since I can't bother with point by point let's just say nothing you've stated changes my opinion about the fact that this brief time period from 77-79 is different from what followed.

No way are ALL the sales numbers inaccurate...not sure what sort of revelation has taken hold since page 26 of this thread I'm skimming While I'm sure there are inconsistencies, errors and the like....there is no reason to totally ignore industry statistics from this era or any era for that matter.

The brief era of fat diamond Marvel issues from 77-79 not being identified as Whitman on the cover doesn't make the case for not calling them Whitmans because DC's books have it printed out on the cover. Do we not refer to any newsstand copies as newsstand by knowing the UPC barcode format? Later copies (2005 ish?) had it spelled out 'newsstand or direct' so is that when it's proper to start calling non-direct copies newsstands? The era of inconsistent production featured on the BIP link posted earlier is unique, there were far less copies produced for Western/Whitman than later on when the direct market went nationwide, it's also true that the books were thought of as reprints and shunned by some collectors in that era....but I never visited an LCS that carried those as their primary back issue stock and referring to them as "only' direct or early direct editions ignores that distinction. That IS a critical distinction especially in an era where your early local comic shops in the early 80's were able be reckless with ordering since virtually any book ordered could and would be repriced, bagged, boarded and sold in a few months for more than cover price. The fact that the DC versions are marked Whitman is the best argument to refer to this brief era of Marvel's earliest direct books as Whitman copies.

You continually repeat this like it proves your point. The point of redesign by Marvel for Whitman/Western was to prevent abuse by others who had the ability to return since the books could be remaindered by those who could. If Marvel saw "no need" why would DC bother with a redesign at all? You can read the source I offered earlier via google books search....what'd you think of that?

Nope. They are, in fact, Direct editions, made expressly because they needed a way to differentiate Direct from newsstand copies, so that Direct copies wouldn't be returned through newsstand distribution channels. Otherwise, there was no need for them to be made. So he can't call them that if he wants? The Whitman/Western design from 77-79 was the antecedent to the design Marvel adopted for their direct program in 1979. See page five of American Comic Book Chronicles The 1970's By Jason Sacks, Keith Dallas, Dave Dykema

Companies processing packages through Customs have to follow the regulations and can't exercise the same discretion in-house postal/customs facilitators do. It's similar to crossing the border personally where your declaration to a border agent may result in them letting you go without paying duty/tax that should have been paid.

Reading these Ditko manifestos makes me miss @MrMcKnowitall