Jaydogrules

Definitely love his Wolverine on that cover. Great book. -J.

Case in point, and as requested by RMA..... Here is what just four knowlegeable boardies and Diamond account holders have had to say about variant print runs, printing standards in genral , and publishers' printing to the nearest case pack. There are many, many more examples , but these contain the posts that best and most concisely make the relevant points. A greatest hits, if you will: From Wowithurts, regarding typcial, competent publishing standards: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=399310&Number=9126246#Post9126246 From paul747, in a PM to me regarding publishers printing to the nearest case pack (obviously pertaining to the ASM 667 Dell'otto. He later got back to me with even more specific info on that book, which he asked me not to share publicly , so I won't.) : From Chuck Gower , regarding Marvel's "PR stance" related to printing incentives close to orders , up to the nearest case pack (he goes in to greater detail over a couple of pages , but later seems to imply that he doesn't really believe Marvel (or Diamond). I suppose that's where I originally got the idea that some believe in a "vast publisher conspiracy" when it comes to ratio variants ): http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9137981&fpart=6 And From Larryscomics in a recent post, referring again , to books being printed , rounded up to the nearest case pack: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=238508&Number=9602466#Post9602466 All of this is supported by my own independent research , including just chatting up a couple of local lcs owners. This is the difference between someone stating their own "opinion" and making "assumptions" to support a preconceived and obviously prejudiced conclusion, and actually fact gathering and paying attention to what other knowledgeable boardies repeatedly state. Facts. It's been fun gents. -J.

Actually the majority of his first post is his opinion. Especially the second half where he says people "can't" or "shouldn't" estimate whatever the hell they want to estimate however the hell they want to do it. All that is his opinion. This thread is his forum for expressing it. He was free to start it for that purpose. No need to rehash all that though. And I am sorry to hear about your employment situation. Hope things turn around soon. Go Canucks. -J.

Which is fine , since most of what I posted are actually the facts. -J. Interesting. How have you come to the conclusion that what you have posted is fact? Interesting how you come in at the end of a conversation with nothing to add except personal insults and quips that you evidently think are funny. Do you just follow RMA around and troll the people who disagree with him? Or are you working on that third strike already ? Either way, good job, mate. -J.

Which is fine , since most of what I posted are actually the facts. -J.

Nice spin :: It has been explained to you by multiple Diamond account holding boardies, on multiple occasions, that your understanding of the printing business is lacking and that your print run claims are ridiculous. Oh hooray, the peanut gallery. Sounds like you better use the search function for a recap too and then maybe you'll be able to contribute something productive for once. -J. Pointing out that you're full of *spoon* feels very productive :shrug: Guess that just goes to show how worthless your time really is. -J. Mine totally is, I'm unemployed. Instead of trying to brace up that huge ego you have, perhaps taking what facts have been presented and incorporating it into your base knowledge would help you grow to the intellectual height you think you sit at. Opinions and assumptions are not "facts". Hard to tell the difference , I know. Sorry to hear you're unemployed. -J.

Nice spin :: It has been explained to you by multiple Diamond account holding boardies, on multiple occasions, that your understanding of the printing business is lacking and that your print run claims are ridiculous. Oh hooray, the peanut gallery. Sounds like you better use the search function for a recap too and then maybe you'll be able to contribute something productive for once. -J. Pointing out that you're full of *spoon* feels very productive :shrug: Guess that just goes to show how worthless your time really is. -J.

Nice spin :: It has been explained to you by multiple Diamond account holding boardies, on multiple occasions, that your understanding of the printing business is lacking and that your print run claims are ridiculous. Oh hooray, the peanut gallery. Sounds like you better use the search function for a recap too and then maybe you'll be able to contribute something productive for once. -J.

I'd be interested in one of those French variants if it's a blue label Here's my two recent D'O books, subbed the Winter Soldier at Rose City last month (one of two 9.8s that I got back): Jerome Awesome pick ups man! -J.

RMA, it has been explained to you by multiple Diamond account holding boardies, on multiple occasions, how the ordering system works, and that books are printed to the nearest case pack of 150-250 and shipped to Diamond. This is where I get my information from, and it is consistent with my own research. You have either chosen to ignore it or have forgotten this. You have also evidently chosen to ignore or have forgotten the multiple boardies involved and familiar with the printing industry who have, again, on multiple occasions, explained to you that, no, publishers do not routinely over-print books just for the heck of it, comic book publishers operate on very tight margins these days, and that, at most, the print run will exceed orders by about 5-10% to cover damages and whatever courtesy copies they want to hand out (printed up to the nearest case pack of course). It has also already been explained to you how and why the unclaimed/unneeded printing overages for a relatively small amount of books (usually not ratio variants) end up being sold at a later date through secondary channels. Your conclusion appears to be, since that has happened, some times on some books, one should assume that all books must be needlessly over printed and sitting around somewhere taking up space waiting to be sold for under cover price.....just because, and that therefore no one should even bother making reasonable estimates on ratio print runs, in spite of these typical publishing standards and publicly available data that we have. This is where your opinion comes in. When in fact, all it proves is that those select books being sold had printing overages. (And again, most of those books are not even ratio variants, another point that you either have ignored or forgotten.) Extrapolating that out to any book beyond the ones whose overages are being sold is where your assumptions come in. Thus making this entire thread little more than a forum for you to express your opinions and assumptions (which is fine, as long as you are not attempting to sell or imply that those are "facts"). So since it is readily apparent that you will continue to grind your axe against variants no matter how many times, or by how many people you are corrected, I will bid you adieu on this topic for now. -J.

RMA, remind me please of exactly what "facts" you are using ? The entire premise of this thread is "mud". Heck, even the thread title is "mud". Why? Because in it you make an affirmative statement, as if it is well settled fact, for the seeming purpose of beginning a conversation, when it is, in reality just a cleverly disguised jumping off point to discuss your opinion. That "1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 are RETAILER INCENTIVE ratios not PRINT RUN numbers". But how do you know this ? Where has this ever been announced by any publisher ? Do you have any evidence of this ? Has a publisher ever come out and said that the ratios aren't closely mirrored to their print numbers ? You know, so that they don't constantly print product that retailers haven't ordered ? For some reason you assume that they are not. And that is most certainly an assumption. Why is your assumption (essentially based on nothing ) any more valid than a person who chooses to rely on standard publishing practices , publicly available data and common sense to reach their own reasonable conclusions? You're very good at demanding specifics and "proof" of things whilst you initiate a conversation, provide none yourself , disguise your opinions as "facts" , and then condescend to those who disagree with your opinions. Another "RMA Rule" methinks. -J.

So in summary... 1) No one "knows" the exact print run of any comic printed, ratio variant, or otherwise (I don't believe anyone has ever actually claimed this, but since RMA enjoys endlessly repeating it anyway, it should be acknowledged). 2) Comichron provides industry accepted estimates of comic books ordered by retailers. 3) The FOC (final order cut-off) is in place to give publishers a very good idea of how many comics they will need to print. 4) Publishers do not make it a habit of frivolously printing books no one has ordered (no, specially printed reward, surprise, RRP, giveaway books are not relevant to this conversation since those books never had a chance to be "ordered" in the first place). Doing so would utterly defeat the entire purpose and function of the FOC. 5) The very limited and occasional over-stock of variants produced by publishers is a normal part of the business and are either liquidated in subsequent variant sell-offs or through secondary retailer channels (though those are usually NOT ratio variants), and are certainly not, in and of themselves , any example of a vast publisher conspiracy. And asking the silly and hypothetical question of "well why don't they just tell everybody how much were printed" is pointless , since , even when publishers or retailers do disclose such information , they are still either met with open skepticism or outright accused of lying. Furthermore , publishers have no duty to disclose such proprietary information , any more so than KFC has a duty to publicly disclose its secret recipe for chicken , just to prove there isn't arsenic in it. Silly, silly, silly 6) It is possible to come up with a reasonable estimate of a ratio variant's print run based on the numbers reported by Comichron , more often than not, to the highest amount printed , rounded up to the nearest case pack. I say the highest because not every retailer will qualify (or necessarily order if they do qualify ) ratio variants and Comichron numbers include the numbers for "all" copies of the issue printed , including variants, thus using Comichron will give you a high estimate of books that one could reasonably expected to be produced. 7) It is RMA's opinion (hence , "RMA's Rule") that this is not a reasonable way to estimate the print run of a ratio. RMA is certainly entitled to his opinion and his own self-imposed rules. -J.

Good luck on those ! -J.

RMA, you need to understand that the entire premise of your belief system - that "publishers print whatever they want" is in fact even more speculative-based than the foundation a person who is making reasonable estimates based on actual retailer orders as reported by Comichron is. The biggest difference being , one is based on publishing standards and publicly reported data, and the other (yours) is based largely on fear -mongering and anecdotes extrapolated from an infinitesimal sample size that, again , is simply a product of the inexact nature of the publishing industry. And by the way, none of the books you mention , Bats 608RRP, Spider-Man Platinum , etc were ratio variants , so I don't see the relevance of brining them up in this conversation. And I think you know the difference between a publisher printing up a couple of cases of a special book as a promotional giveaway or reward to retailers versus the silly notion of them deliberately over printing ratio variants that no one has ordered just to store in a warehouse and later sell for pennies on the dollar. -J.

So....just to clear things up a little... 1) The numbers reported on Comichron are North American sales- Diamond UK reports for the UK and panini handles most of the foreign language reprints. Those are different markets (and different books) and aren't supposed to be reported by Comichron. And even if the UK (and foreign language markets) received all of the same variants that we do (they don't ) , those figures, at best , would add 10-15% over the Comichron totals (but for the regular cover only). 2) Comichron is reporting ORDERS received from dealers by the final-order-cut-off ("FOC"), which is usually about three weeks prior to the book's projected release. 3) The entire purpose of the FOC is to tell the publishers how many copies of a particular book to print. Which means, no they are not blindly printing in a vacuum, in advance , say 100,000 copies of a book that only ultimately has 47,000 copies ordered. Doing so would obviously negate the entire purpose of having an FOC and would be spectacularly pointless and wasteful. 4) This would also ( obviously) apply to variants as well (incentive , and otherwise ). Therefore , no, publishers do not deliberately print to waste , nor do they make it a habit of printing thousands of books that retailers have not ordered. 5) Yes, most orders will have a small percentage of overages printed (as little as 5-10%, give or take) to account for damages, creator and courtesy copies, etc., rounded up to the nearest case pack, which are typically 150-250 books per case (sorry, RMA, them's the facts , whether "you" choose to believe them or not). Those damages and courtesy copies are absolutely NOT deliberately held back for release onto the secondary market through five below packs , three packs and variant burn off sales at a later date. To even suggest such preposterous nonsense is to suggest that publishers are deliberately TRYING to waste money, and in any event , the vast majority of variants offered through those channels are NOT even incentive based variants. 6) The excess inventory that you do see in five below packs, variant burn off sales, etc. (representing an infinitiessimal amount of variants actually printed in a single year) is just that - excess inventory. Sometimes a publisher will over order on an "event book" (like a new "#1", new character intro, etc) that doesn't meet the expected demand. Sometimes they will have virtually an entire case pack left over. The publishing industry is not an exact science, and with the exception of UF 4 Djuedjevic (first Miles Morales event) and ASM 4 Ramos (first Silk event), all that is ever offered in those variant burn off sales or found in those multi-packs is the exact same sort of DREK that you would expect to find being blown out at under cost. But it is very possible and very reasonable to make educated estimates based on the information that we do know. 7) Hence , it is very reasonable to estimate an approximate amount of copies of most ratio variants based on the data that we do know. Since Comichron reports books "ordered", and since publishers do not make it a habit of printing thousands of books that no retailer has ordered , we can indeed use the numbers reported by it (Comichron) to guesstimate how many ratio variants were produced and circulated. 8) No, it will not be an exact number. It doesn't have to be. That is "RMA's Rule", and, all due respect to him, he is wrong. Indeed , using the Comichron based way of calculating the amount of copies produced (rounded up to the nearest case pack) is the BEST way to calculate "the most" copies produced as even that is assuming that all orders qualified for incentives , when it is common knowledge that many (if not most) will not, especially on the higher ratio incentives. I know that RMA means well, and most of his points , if taken individually , are actually quite accurate. However, taken in whole they allude to (if not stating outright ) a widespread publisher conspiracy that would involve both lying and fraud in the incentive program by publishers. So he should really stop grinding this little axe of his against variants until there is actual real and credible evidence of that. Again , yes, sometimes a very small amount incentives end up on the secondary market through discount channels. However this is a result of the occasional gaffes that result from the inexact nature of the publishing business, not rampant and epidemic fraud and deceit. -J.

You've just said the exact same thing, using different words. Read the post again. Here, I'll just say it again: for every, say, 25 copies a retailer orders (and Diamond DISTRIBUTES to them), they qualify to receive OR purchase ONE (1) copy of the incentive...that is, Diamond will DISTRIBUTE a SINGLE copy of the incentive for every 25 copies of the regular they order. They are NOT distribution numbers in the sense of how many TOTAL COPIES are distributed, no. They ARE, however, distribution numbers in the sense of how many copies can be distributed to INDIVIDUAL retailers. Ohhhh, "I" get it Rock, I understand the system completely. What you are describing as: "Distribution numbers" to define: ratio variants 1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 ect & their actual print run, needs a better term. Use your words... C'mon now you preachy . Fix your lazy error. But his entire point is invalidated if he isn't allowed to invent and then use his own terminiology. -J. With your history and reputation .... I wouldn't go there, Lar. -J. Yes, Larry. So says the guy who regularly commissions and sells worthless drek to unsuspecting masses. So says the guy who started the lie on the Vader Down sketch variant that it "only" had 20 copies printed so that he could quickly gouge the clueless early adopters into paying thousands of dollars for the multiple copies that he was holding. Your blatantly racist and homophobic Twitter rants are also legendary. Or did "online lunatics" hack your account and post that vitriolic garbage for you? Should I keep going or are you "thriving" enough yet? But yes, go right on ahead continuing to believe that I have any need , interest or time to "manipulate " the market on the single copy of books that I own and will never sell. -J.

You've just said the exact same thing, using different words. Read the post again. Here, I'll just say it again: for every, say, 25 copies a retailer orders (and Diamond DISTRIBUTES to them), they qualify to receive OR purchase ONE (1) copy of the incentive...that is, Diamond will DISTRIBUTE a SINGLE copy of the incentive for every 25 copies of the regular they order. They are NOT distribution numbers in the sense of how many TOTAL COPIES are distributed, no. They ARE, however, distribution numbers in the sense of how many copies can be distributed to INDIVIDUAL retailers. Ohhhh, "I" get it Rock, I understand the system completely. What you are describing as: "Distribution numbers" to define: ratio variants 1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 ect & their actual print run, needs a better term. Use your words... C'mon now you preachy . Fix your lazy error. But his entire point is invalidated if he isn't allowed to invent and then use his own terminiology. -J. With your history and reputation .... I wouldn't go there, Lar. -J.

You've just said the exact same thing, using different words. Read the post again. Here, I'll just say it again: for every, say, 25 copies a retailer orders (and Diamond DISTRIBUTES to them), they qualify to receive OR purchase ONE (1) copy of the incentive...that is, Diamond will DISTRIBUTE a SINGLE copy of the incentive for every 25 copies of the regular they order. They are NOT distribution numbers in the sense of how many TOTAL COPIES are distributed, no. They ARE, however, distribution numbers in the sense of how many copies can be distributed to INDIVIDUAL retailers. Ohhhh, "I" get it Rock, I understand the system completely. What you are describing as: "Distribution numbers" to define: ratio variants 1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 ect & their actual print run, needs a better term. Use your words... C'mon now you preachy . Fix your lazy error. But his entire point is invalidated if he isn't allowed to invent and then use his own terminiology. -J.

-J.

I assume you took cues from then from their Top 10 and Variant Heat Check topics which first started in Feb. 2015? Oh, they mimicked that based on the old Wizard Top 10. But even before that Overstreet had a top list by age. But yes, you were the first to do a comic list. Didn't say anything about all comics lists in general. Ranking all time modern variants based on value, no, I don't see where that has been done before publicly.. (Different than a weekly variant "heat check" or monthly "Top 10".) -J.

Yea, that list is for the past 3 months or so. Basically copying this thread that Jay and I put together (well, mostly Jay!) Jerome Huh? I appreciate the work that JDR and yourself have put into this. But it's a 10-12 book list with consideration of about another 15, maybe. The other list is 100 books. Yes, there will be some overlapping, but this list is of well known books. That is why they sell for so much. They are known and desired. The other list is of harder to find books, yes, maybe less desired but they sell for a decent chunk of change, just not approaching the 4 figure mark. Weird day on the boards... Well....I think what lethal_collector means was the list here on the Boards was the first attempt (that I have at least seen) to quantify and rank the books in any meaningful way. Yes CBSI went out to 100, but you'll notice that the list pretty much falls apart anyway after the first 15 or so books due to the inherent volatility in the variant market (which is why we kept it at 12 here to only catalogue the "best of the best"). But CBSI obviously took its cues from the list on the Boards. -J.

-J.

Here's to hoping Sony has learned its lesson. -J.

Yes, and I can't help but be cautiously optimistic that if/when the movie does happen , it will be a proper Venom -Eddie Brock and all. -J.

We also don't know how many days, months, or years the movie covers.... -J.