RockMyAmadeus

Because 1. I can make "$12" once. Therefore, it's not "$144 per hour." 2. It's not $12. 3. It's not 5 minutes. 4. My time is better and more efficiently spent elsewhere. Show me the scenario where I can repeat that $12, over and over again, and now you've got a proposition.

There is an implication here that your support will be indirect, especially when coupled with your statement that you will be "happy to buy his work from others". Indirect support is still a form of support, but you stated you won't be supporting him. I was simply pointing out the fallacy and conflict of your statement. Specifically referring to this comment...I thought it was clear from the context of my very purposeful word choice that there is, in fact, an acknowledgement on my part of the possibility of at least some form of implicit support...I think the phrase "I won't be supporting him directly" made that clear, and, stated as such, there is no fallacy or conflict in my statement. I could be in error. I hope you're enjoying this dance as much as I am....

There is an implication here that your support will be indirect, especially when coupled with your statement that you will be "happy to buy his work from others". Indirect support is still a form of support, but you stated you won't be supporting him. I was simply pointing out the fallacy and conflict of your statement. By engaging in the market in any way, you are affecting the Campbell cover art economy. Sure, you are one, simple, near-insignificant blip in this market (especially considering the volume of Campbell works that are pumped out monthly), but so is any individual making such a purchase. Sum up all of these individuals, however, and you now have captured the whole of Campbell back-issue demand. Regardless of profit to be made on the secondary market by the original direct-from-Campbell buyer, the fact that there is a secondary market at all is enough to affect demand on the primary market. Just like the overall back-issue market for comic books in general, the original buyer knows that the market is liquid (thanks to individuals like yourself), and therefore can be more comfortable in placing that original order. As much as Campbell art may be pleasing and desired, not many will be literally taking these books to the grave with them. Knowing you can always sell on the secondary market (again, thanks to individuals like yourself), though not the primary driver for overall direct-from-Campbell purchases, is definitely a factor in that market as a whole. So, you made an interesting comment, which I'd like to unpack, if I may... "By engaging the market in any way, you are affecting the Campbell cover art economy." I will extend you the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt, and assume that when you say "the market", you are referring to books created by Campbell. I must ask...explain to me, using simple terms that a dullard like me can understand...how is purchasing a back issue that happens to contain the creative work of Campbell "affecting the Campbell cover art economy" and how the fact that there is a secondary market at all is enough to affect demand on the primary market. Let me see if I understand you properly: any purchase, of any kind of creative product of Campbell, affects demand on the primary market, correct? So, my purchase of a Danger Girl #3 (1998) from a dealer's dollar box has affected the primary market in some fashion...? And that's true, regardless of the motive of the buyer? If I buy, say, Deathmate Black Gold because I collect Valiant gold books, I've affected the primary Campbell market in some way, by virtue of the fact that that book contains Campbell art...? And how do you "(know) you can always sell on the secondary market"...? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. I'll hang up and take my answer on the air.

Seller makes profit in which they take your money and buy more Campbell books. Wow, that was hard. Apparently, it is hard. Let me ask you a few questions: 1. How do you know "seller makes profit"? 2. How do you know seller will "buy more Campbell books"? 3. Assuming...and it's a big assumption...that #1 and #2 are true...if said seller is buying back issues as well...again, how is Campbell supported? 4. Reductio ad absurdum, according to Chaos Theory, every purchase by everyone impacts everyone else in some small, usually immeasurable way. But only when you reduce it to the absurd.

How is Campbell supported by me buying a back issue...?

Definitely not worth the time, after all costs figured in.

Well I am really glad you found these and brought this info the boards. To me, you have lent some valuable insight as to what was happening to the B&N comic books that did not sell. And you have un-earthed some comic books that people have been looking for a long time, myself included. Yes, regardless of how, the fact is that these books were SAVED, and that's the important part.

So long as he charges a CGC punishment tax, I won't be supporting him. I'll be happy to buy his work from others, but I won't be supporting him directly.

I don't like the r-word used in a pejorative sense Why not? That's the only sense it has left. It was banished from use as a descriptive for the mentally disabled, precisely because it became a pejorative. The words "idiot" and "moron" didn't use to be pejorative, either, and now, that's their only use.

Yes, but it's not as sexy in the group shot.

Oh FFS. Really? TO THE LONG BOXES! I turned down the opportunity to buy IC #3 and #5 for $5 each on Wednesday. Just couldn't bring myself to do it. $1? Heck yeah. $5? Pass.

That's a San Fernando Valley area code....

Too bad Castrillo can't get his act together. These issues have been around for years. I've had dinner with him, and he seemed like a nice guy.

It is probably not practical, but I guess Lifesugggs could send DC a note and let them know he will send DC the amount of money they are due for each comic book that he decides to keep or sell. I'm pretty sure that's not possible. I think the responsibility lies with the person who was supposed to "pulp" them. It's fascinating to me that books that didn't sell when they came out are now desirable and sought after. Isn't that always the case...?

....which means they were reported as unsold...which means DC didn't get paid.....

SOOs don't cover calendar years. The most common (by far) Date of Filing is October 1. When they get published is another issue, and there is occasionally some questionable timing. That's not true. SOOs historically cover (or are supposed to cover) issues dated January to December. That's why they're filed on October 1: the last cover date (December) of a monthly periodical, for example, had just been published. The thing about the SOOs is....they were self-reporting. Did the USPS ever audit the information provided...? I'm guessing the answer is "no."

You're welcome!

You people need to get out more.

I wonder if there are any warehoused groups of post-2000 Newsstands anywhere. I suspect there are. And I further suspect that the "returns" process for newsstand comics in the 00s and 10s had something to do with actual returns of actual physical copies (rather than the historical affidavit/remainder procedure) that could then be shipped to other countries and placed on sale there. Pure conjecture...but not out of the realm of possibility. I happened upon, in 2015 or so, a shortbox of 2007-2009 Marvel newsstands at a dealer in SoCal. I should have bought the entire box, but I didn't. But he had something I'd not seen before: multiples of fairly mid-gradeish copies of popular Marvels (DD, Wolverine) from those years. And....as I noted elsewhere, the SOOs from that period are wackily out of sync, and contradictory in places. How can an SOO for a title be printed in the the October issue, on sale in August, for that entire year...? And how do you go from 25,000 newsstand returns per issue in 2001, to a mere 3,000 in 2003 for Avengers? Also also...I suspect that, if you average out the totals reported by Diamond for North American sales, you'd end up with a HIGHER NUMBER (avg) than the total number of copies reported to have been printed (avg.) Too many discrepancies.... By the way....around 2009, there was a dollar book store in Burbank, CA, that also got in comics. At one point, they got in several hundred books from 1983-1985....weird, random books, like Thing #4 and Thor #338. And....they were all in EXCELLENT shape. I do not know where they came from, but I spent probably 3 days, 4-5 hours each, pre-screening the hell out of those books and pulling out the dead 9.8 copies. Now...if I'd known about pressing like I do now, I just would have said "how much for all of them?" and taken them all, but I ended up with a long box of these mid 80s books...and here's the kicker: every single one of them was a newsstand copy. So....where did they come from?

Zip it, lights boy. I can come by and add some holiday joy to your place there, Ebenezer. I'm putting mine up today. Plus my inflatable Santa Landru That's what my house is missing! Just that...?

I wonder how and why newsstand copies were ending up in Venezuela or Germany....very interesting...

I want to make sure I have your estimates correct. You're saying that, in 2011, when Barnes & Noble alone operated 705 stores nationwide, and Marvel films were starting to hit a tremendous stride, the flagship title of the company only sold 1500-2000 copies per issue on the newsstand...nationwide? How many newsstands were selling comics in 2011? The answer isn't "none." How many Walmarts were selling comics in 2011? The answer isn't "none." How many retail book sellers were selling comics besides B&N in 2011? Again, the answer's not "none." There are a LOT of problems with the numbers on the SOOs...some of which were printed in Oct, Nov, and Dec COVER dated books, when the year those SOOs were reporting weren't even over yet.

No, it doesn't.

Obviously, as we have all discussed at great length over many years here. Now...please provide me the SOOs for Marvel's titles from 2013. 2011? 2006? 2003...? Oh, right. They stopped printing them, because they stopped offering mail subscriptions, or they shipped them First Class, so they were no longer required to print them. Even Marvel's flagship title, ASM, has gaps, and data that is bizarre and irreconcilable. Did you run the numbers? Did you add up ALL the sales data for the year from Comichron for all issues published with a 2011 cover date, so you could come up with an average number of copies sold per month through Diamond? The issue numbers are #648-#672, if you're interested in doing the hard work. And....this is an interesting question: which version were subscribers sent...? So, what are the numbers for DC's flagship characters, Batman and Superman? No clue. DC stopped shipping subs Second Class after 1987, and there are no SOOs past then for ANY DC title. Yes, WHERE AVAILABLE, you can come up with estimates. WHERE AVAILABLE. Let me repeat that, since it's critical to understanding the issue: WHERE AVAILABLE. DC past 1987? NOT AVAILABLE. Let me repeat that: for every single issue of every single DC comic book printed in 1988 to the present, we have NO INFORMATION about how many were printed, sold, returned, or exist. Not a single book. Right? Correct me if I'm wrong. MOST of Marvel past the 90s? NOT AVAILABLE. Don't argue exceptions as if they are the rule. That's bad scholarship.