RockMyAmadeus

Were they magic beans....?

What do you consider an acceptable profit margin for someone to make, and how do you go about determining what their profit margin is...?

Yeah, that's pretty crazy. #131 is as hard to get in 9.8 as many of the earlier ones, like #116, 114, 104, 95. Only the monstrously rare #97-99 and 107 are tougher in 9.8, That said, I suspect this sale will drive some out of the woodwork...

This is a false narrative.

That's not the next line! Boo!

You lie!

All of them...?

Apparently, someone lost the comics code seal that week, and had to substitute. I don't know, but the Cap head appears on several books from that month. If someone wanted to do a Copyright office search, I bet they'd find these were all published the same week. Marvel stopped printing the CCA seal on the covers of Direct editions for several years, starting with the Marvel "M" in Oct, 1983 cover dates, when they did away with the "Marvel Comics Group" banner at the top of their books. Figured that comics stores didn't need them. That doesn't mean they weren't CCA approved, though, and those were printed in the price/issue box for the next several years. When they got rid of the "M" format, and went to the box format for all issues, starting with Apr, 1987 cover dates, the code appeared once more on Direct issues, before disappearing for good around 2001. RIP CCA.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/X-MEN-ISSUE-131-CGC-9-8-NM-MT-W-PGS-2ND-DAZZLER-BYRNE-CLAREMONT-MARVEL-UNCANNY/202584101005?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055359.m1431.l2649 This book has always been tough in ultra high grade. That damn Star Trek back cover. Wowza.

I have not used "a bunch" to back up anything. Both you and Bleeding Cool used qualitative words, to make opposing points. Pointing that out isn't "backing up my claim." If you are unwilling to put a number to your claims, then you won't answer the question. Pretty simple. As for the rest....this has already been addressed. See above. You ought to decide if you want a real discussion, or just a petty argument to score points. If you want a real discussion, you should cut out all snarky comments, "joking" or not. Your choice.

1. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Invoking "us" is just a way to bolster...artifically...your own opinion. 2. You should keep your opinions about others to yourself. I don't denigrate you when you go on about the nonsense that bothers you. You can extend the same courtesy. Really. You can't seem to understand that "going on" requires at least two parties. Funny, that. 3. You just completely agreed with me.

It was a non-answer. It just used more qualitative words to not answer the direct question. "That's a really big collection!" "What do you mean by 'big'?" "I mean, it's like. huge, gigantic, enormous! You know...large! Like...you know, bigger than normal!" Just like you didn't answer what you meant by "over publishing" and "flooding the market." As for my claim, I'll leave it to you to figure out. It's pretty obvious, if you think about it for just a bit. Here's your hints: Miracleman #1 THROUGH #10. All incentive variants. Incentive variants that are produced to the tune of 1,000 or more EACH....because that's the minimum that publishers like DC and Marvel order...

I've already addressed this. See above.

That's not an answer, with a shot of snarky added for good measure, which accomplishes nothing. We were talking about specific comic books; in this case, the Miracleman incentives. All you did here was answer the exact same way you answered before, just using different words, which is a non-answer. We've already well established that retailer incentives are routinely printed in "many multiples of the numbers normally produced as overages to replace damages." And, really...this conversation's going nowhere, and it's just making the audience mad.

a HA! So it was Wein's idea!

For the benefit of those who want to cling to Comichron numbers as a means of making a "reasonable estimate based on publicly available data", I will once more run down the reasons why that is not a good idea: 1. Comichron numbers are sales numbers (NOT print numbers) of all versions of a particular book, including, perhaps, the numbers printed of the retailer incentive. That means we don't have a breakdown of those numbers into their component parts. If a book sold 79,387 copies...as reported by Diamond...we don't know how many of those 79,387 were regular versions and how many were variants (and some books have multiple variants, INCLUDING store variants, convention variants, retailer incentive variants, etc.) (A great example of this was Amazing Spiderman #666, which had, according to Diamond, 135,568 copies sold in its first month of release...but that number includes over 140 different versions of the "store" variant, and each store had to order a minimum of 500 copies....so, if each ordered the minimum, that's 70,000 or so copies right there...and yet, all we know is how many TOTAL copies, all versions, were sold that first month.) 2. Comichron numbers are, themselves, estimates. 3. Comichron numbers don't include reorders, which are copies that were printed, but not sold, during the sales period reported by Diamond. 4. Comichron numbers are estimates for sales only in North America, and include no numbers for standard, English language copies printed and sold in other locations around the world. 5. Retailer incentive numbers are order numbers; that is, what a retailer must order of the regular to obtain one copy of the incentive variant. Nowhere will anyone find anything that suggests that those numbers relate, in any way, to how many a publisher prints (with some rare exceptions for smaller publishers.) It is only an ordering number. 6. The publishers print not only enough to cover qualifying orders plus overages for damage, but also enough to give many away at various promotional events AND offer many for sale, in numbers ABOVE "case pack" numbers, on a routine basis, which further skews the "estimates." Because of all these factors, it is impossible to use estimates...and only one type of estimates, sales in the first month of all copies to North America...to make any sort of "reasonable" estimate on the number of retailer incentives printed. You would be trying to make an estimate of an estimate of an estimate. The resulting numbers are functionally useless. The appeal..."well, Diamond reports this many, so 1:100 must mean they made 1% of that Diamond number!"...is there, for sure. But that's only when you don't understand what those numbers represent and how they're derived. Once you scratch the surface even a little bit, you discover how futile the exercise is. It's better to have NO estimates, than use estimates of estimates of estimates to come up with bad numbers that almost certainly bear no resemblance to reality. Of course, that won't stop people from doing so, because it's appealing (and lazy) to do so...but that doesn't mean it's correct.

That is yet another of your strawman arguments, and it doesn't even make all that much sense. I don't think you know what "conflating" means. I thought you were done...?

...guess not. Again.

Right. NOW you're onto something. NOW you're starting to get it: "something that can't be proven." Go with that.

Once more: there isn't a way to determine the number of copies out there. While I recognize that some of you have a need to quantify everything, the fact is, in this case, there is no GOOD way, much less "better" way. The Comichron numbers ARE NOT a "good starting point", for all the various reasons that have already been given...multiple times...because the Comichron numbers have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the incentive variants in any way, shape, or form, other than PERHAPS being included as part of the total number reported, which tells us virtually nothing. If you cannot accept that, then you're going to continue to run into these problems. "Something" is not always better than nothing. And if we're going to play the "you didn't answer my question" game...which is tedious and dull...I already asked you a question you have yet to answer: what do YOU consider "huge"? Since "huge" and "a bunch" are qualitative terms which have no real meaning, then tell me what you mean by "huge", and I'll be happy to explain where my support for my claim lies.

When you're interested in having a real discussion, instead of trying to play "gotcha!" games, let me know.

That's because the question has already been answered, over and over again. If the answer doesn't change, there's no point in continuing to answer it.

Chuck has disproven your contentions, countless times. Other people have disproven your contentions, countless times. On the issue of retailer incentives, you, Jaydogrules, have absolutely no credibility of any sort whatsoever. None. Sad to say that, but that's the way it is. You're not interested in the truth. You're only interested in your narrative. I hope you're good this time. You've made that statement before, and yet...here we are.