RockMyAmadeus

The world was a vastly different place in 1977. No one could have foreseen that these comics would have been worth what they became worth. Look at stamps. Stamps were still a very big deal in 1977. Now, all but the most spectacular rarities are nearly worthless. No one collects stamps anymore. If you paid $2.000 for the finest stamps in 1977, and saved them, you almost certainly would have lost it all by now. Could comics have gone the way of stamps in 1977? You better believe they could. In 1977, the comics market was dying, and Chuck knew this. New comics weren't selling, and despite the flashy reports of the era, conventions were still attended in the hundreds....maybe SDCC had 1,000+ attendees in 1977? It took the Direct market to save comics. Jim Shooter often talks about the fact that Star Wars saved Marvel. Now, he may be exaggerating, or he may be understating, but the situation for comics was quite dire in 1977. I looked at someone's collection of records a couple years ago. I had no idea what I was looking at. They had hundreds and hundreds of records. Big names, like the Beatles and the like. All from the 50s and 60s. I spent a week....a very long week...researching prices, on the hopes that at least ONE of those records had value. And not a single one of them did. And I had the resources of the internet and eBay at my fingertips. That's what people going through comics who know nothing about them feel. And that would have been greatly magnified in 1977. And, frankly...there has been more than one instance where someone looked at me, after I had given them my knowledge and expertise free of charge about their VG 70s Marvels, and acted as if I didn't know what I was talking about, or was trying to rip them off (when I wasn't even interested in buying their books.) That knowledge has VALUE. It was gained over time. Should I freely hand over that knowledge? Should you? We do it all the time here, and how often is it met with scorn from people who think of themselves as comic collectors...? Should sellers lie about value? No. That's a pretty clear line to draw. If someone asks "how much do you think these are worth?", you should at the very least point them in the right direction ("I'd look on eBay or the internet to get an idea of how much they're worth." Remember: they're not paying me for an appraisal, and my knowledge has VALUE.) It would be crossing a very clear moral line to say "oh, those comics aren't worth anything" or to pull out an OPG from 1987. But if someone I encounter has comics worth $10,000, and I say "how much?" and they say "$10"....I'm going to hand them over my $10, say "thank you very much", and walk away. If they say "how much are you willing to pay?", I give an amount I'm willing to spend, and if they like that, also fine. I'm happy, they're satisfied. I am under ZERO obligation to "educate" them about the "true value" of those books...and neither is anyone else. And people have far more resources at their fingertips today than they did 40 years ago. My knowledge and experience has VALUE. So does yours. If you're willing to give away your knowledge and experience, that's your choice: but recognize that it is an act of charity, to which you are not obligated, and neither is anyone else. AND...circling back to Chuck...if what he says is true...and, admittedly, that's a large grain of salt to swallow...the family was in the process of throwing them away. The fact that they got ANYTHING for things they were about to throw away should be enough evidence to demonstrate that they didn't get "ripped off" by anyone...again, assuming Chuck's version is an accurate portrayal of events.

People aren't buying romance or crime books. They're buying artists and covers - the genre is sort of irrelevant. The vast majority of them have not retained their value. Which is another new facet of the hobby, that didn't exist 20, 15, or maybe even 10 years ago (though I admit that's stretching it a bit.) This book: ...back in the 80s and 90s, this book had a guide value of about the same as the books around it. It was "broken out", and had a bit more value because it was used in SOTI and the Senate investigation, but it wasn't even as valuable as #20: Now....#22 has left all the others in the dust. It's not even close. It sells for 10 or more times #21 and #23, and significantly more than #20. And it's just because of that cover. It's a new-ish phenomenon, that simply didn't exist in the pre-slabbing era. Will we see more of this...? Probably.

Yes, but you made the claim that nobody has heard of Spider Gwen outside of the comics community, which is true. Irrespective of the value of this particular variant, it's also true that nobody ever heard of Groot, RR, or Star Lord outside the comics community, either, but I guarantee you...under the right circumstances, people would be paying $2k for something featuring those guys, a week after they came out. I'm not disagreeing with you, but if the criteria is "no one's ever heard of Spider Gwen, and probably never will"...I don't think that's a valid angle to look at it from. While that's true NOW...it may not be true TOMORROW, or at some point in the future.

Right...and I was setting aside what we knew from Chuck entirely. I don't think anyone ever got the Church family side of the story, did they?

Not defending Chuckles...God forbid...but, historical context always has to be considered. In 1977, people generally had no clue that there were comic books that were "worth money." The new DC and Marvels were 30 cents; virtually everything else published after 1955 was worth less than that, and that which was published before, very few people ever saw, since 95-99% of it was destroyed. Should the Church family have been set? Eh. Even throwing Chuck's story out top to bottom, the truth is, these people probably had no idea what they had, and just wanted to get rid of it. There would have been virtually no one, relative to the general population, that even knew what these people had. There was no internet, there were, perhaps, 100 comic stores nationwide...maybe....so it's not as if they had access to any information. Did Chuck get the steal of a lifetime, even relative to 1977? Sure. But were there options for the Church family besides Chuck...? Probably not. And believe it or not, knowledge DOES have value. A lot. I love....LOVE...the ridiculous "comic investment websites" that say "if you'd only bought X copies of this book, you'd be rich!" The fact is, it wouldn't have mattered how much you paid, because those books simply weren't available. There's a funny one, about a doofus who runs an "investment" blog, where he talks about buying "multiple copies of Star Wars #1 35 cent variant!!"...but you couldn't have. They weren't available, regardless of how much you wanted to pay. And, if you tried throwing money around such a small market, and buying any and all available copies, you'll get walloped by people with much bigger pockets than you. You'd have ended up paying a LOT more for them, which would have made the "investment" aspect a wash. "If only you bought 20 copies of Action #1 in 1966!" That was almost certainly an impossibility, no matter how much money you offered, no matter how hard you looked. One, two, maybe three...? Sure. Multiples? Dream on. So, while the Church family didn't get anywhere near what they could have...by orders of magnitude...they still didn't get nothing, and if Chuckles paid them $2,000, that was a considerable chunk of change in 1977...for what were, essentially, old magazines.

Chuck overgrades, and always has. Chuck overprices, and always has. So, unless you find something really tough to find, at a decent price, there's no reason to do business with Mile High. I gave them several chances...they sent me F/VF drek they called "NM." Chuck hates slabbing. Why? Because it exposes his own overgrading. That said, his insight and musings into the hobby are par excellence, IF...and this is a big IF...one can get past the endless self promotion.

To be fair, nobody ever heard of Groot or Rocket Raccoon...or Star Lord.

When I was 17....it was a very good yea....wait, no, that's not right. When I was 17, I wanted...so bad I could taste it...Batman #426-429. Some idjit at my high school offered me a set for the low, LOW price of $200. This is 1990 dollars, mind you. At the time, it had an OPG (no "S", folks!) of about $135 for the set. I couldn't afford that. That was a serious chunk of change, and I was only working part time, after school and on weekends. Bat mania finally died, replaced by Spider mania...then X Mania...then Valiant mania, and Death of Superman mania...and then Bat mania again, for a while in 1993....but finally, prices settled back down...and then eBay came...and I could buy sets...complete sets, all four issues!...for $10 plus $5 shipping. So I bought a long box worth. What FD says is absolutely true. "I can't have this now. No way." Fast forward 25 years. "Hey. I'm 40, and I make $250,000 a year...only $5000? I can afford that! That's just a week's salary!"

tease.

And...there are a TON BUNCH of Spawn newsstands for sale on eBay right now...even copies in the 100s.

I think your estimate is much, much more in line with reality than Chuck Rozanski's...who, it must be mentioned, had been dealing exclusively with the Direct market for 25+ or more years by the time he came up with his infamous "newsstand estimate." Late Spawn newsstands...especially past #100...are a BEAR to find. That's when I can imagine print runs of 10,000 or less, but, still keeping in mind that the newsstand, thanks to Borders and Barnes & Noble and other booksellers, might have done slightly better during that time period (1998-2005) than the Direct market. We just don't know, and currently have no way of finding out. But...again, it has to be kept in mind that newsies went almost exclusively to individual readers, many of whom probably save them, but only to the tune of 1 copy each....so those copies have a much harder time trickling back into the marketplace. But look at Spawn #1. 31 copies for sale, right now. People have been made aware, and that book has trickled back into the marketplace. I doubt the numbers for Savage Dragon #1 or Wildcats #1 were significantly less. Thankfully, Youngblood wasn't sold on the newsstand until later.

Too late! As an example of his error, in the very first paragraph of the link given, Mr. Nobel (hopefully no relation to Alfred) says this: 'As discussed in Comic Book Newsstand Editions: Understanding The Difference, the vast majority — 98-99% — of comic books sold by Image Comics were direct edition copies sold to comic shops on a non-returnable basis." Sounds good, right? But that figure...98%-99%...is completely and totally made up. Pulled out of thin air. He has no idea how many were Direct and how many were newsstand. No clue at all. Neither does anyone except Image and the printer. Image never published that information and, as far as I know, never published it for ANY of the books they printed for the newsstand. So, he creates this fantasy number....98%-99%....and will quote Chuck Rozanski's ALSO erroneous "estimation" of ALL newsstands from the time period....and you will come away with the VERY, VERY mistaken impression that Image...having printed somewhere between 1.75 and 2.5 million copies of Spawn #1...only printed 17,500 to 50,000 copies for newsstands all across North America. And this, at a time when the newsstand was quite alive in terms of selling comics. If there were less than 200,000 copies of Spawn #1 printed for the newsstand, I'd be VERY, VERY surprised. There are 31 copies of Spawn #1 newsstand for sale on eBay right now. But, if you went by Mr. Nobel's totally made up estimate...you'd think there were only a tiny handful of these copies out there, and you might seriously overpay....which is the real danger his error-blog is to people...for books that aren't really as rare as he claims they are. And that's just the first paragraph. There are more errors as we go along...

Gag. The "author" of that blog is a guy named Benjamin Nobel, who is as filled with error as Chips Ahoys are filled with chocolate chips. That wouldn't be a problem, except that he also doesn't take kindly to correction of any kind, and actively blocks people who suggest corrections to him. He's one of the people who makes it very, very difficult in the hobby, because he spreads misinformation like the plague, but since he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, it's that much more destructive. It's truth mixed with error, and only the very knowledgeable can spot the difference. People believe all sorts of wacky things because this guy says it, and if he says it, well...it must be true! Avoid at all costs is my recommendation.

Challenge accepted. By the way...it's entirely possible that there are newsstand Spawn #9s with Direct pages in slabs already that were missed. No one will know until and if they're broken out. It's one of the bigger problems of the census, and why it was such a mistake to not differentiate newsstands from the outset. I'll have to check my Spawn #9 newsies and see what I have. This is like the Magnus #57 error, with a good chunk of the print run having pages out of order...that's not the only one, but it is one of the more familiar ones. There is a Catwoman #50 (1993 series) that was bound with just the first 20 or so pages, twice (it's a double sized issue.) Sandman #19 is another famous one, with pages 19 and 20 printed out of order...and that was actually a printing error, not a binding error...the pages are on the wrong side of the leaf, so that page 20 faces page 18. And, of course, Sandman #18 with the blue panels. I still love my Hulk #393 no foil error. I've only seen 2. Here's a pic:

You may have, and just never noticed it. Have you handled a lot of newsstand copies?

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but this really isn't that big a deal. The printers would have printed...at Image's orders...the Direct market books with the heavier paper stock, and the newsstand with the lighter. Once they finished the Direct market, they would have had leftover pages....almost certainly already printed...for the newsstand run. So, they just fed those into the machines, and there's your "error." This happened all the time in the 70s through 90s...you can find copies of X-Men #140 and #141 with ultra white paper...sometimes even hybrid copies of ultra white and regular newsprint....that the printers used. The difference is that, in the case of this book, there's a poster that went with it, otherwise, it may not even have been noticed. Had it been someone unfamiliar with Spawn, they definitely wouldn't have noticed. When Marvel was playing around with the paper stock in the mid 90s, you can find books with a mixture just like this, particularly on X-books. Again...if that floats your boat, that's great...but it isn't something that is going to be particularly tough or rare, in the normal course of things. Now...all that changes if this was part of some test, and only a few copies managed to make it out. But, the most likely scenario is "we had enough for the Direct order, let's use these for the newsstand order."

I agree. PS. You didn't say hi to me at Baltimore, and you were standing right next to me. I was crushed. Of course, I didn't say hi to you, either...so I imagine you were crushed, too.

Mucho plentisimo.

What, my info wasn't good enough...?

Avengers #100 has wall to wall pages of gorgeous Barry Smith art. IF #14 has wavered, but you have been able to get a 9.8 for 35% off its $2500 high at $1600 this year.

OMG...

If I was a publisher, he'd be on my "must call to commission work for" list.

I asked him at SDCC, and he's open to doing an Aria book...but Holguin and Silvestri (?) own the character, so it's up to them. I would absolutely support such an effort, though. I would absolutely support a Witchblade mini by him, too. Maybe I'll pester Silvestri about it next time I see him.

Don't mistake census numbers for extant numbers. The census only reflects the maximum amount of copies that have been submitted to CGC; assuming it represents any real numbers would be a grave mistake. There are a small, but very loud and obnoxious, group of people who claim to know this number and that number, but they have no idea what they're talking about (and many of them become quite hostile...see: Benjamin Nobel...when you challenge them about it.) The truth is, we have no idea how many copies Image made, because they never published that information. We'll probably never know. As knowledge about these newsstands grows, more and more will come out of the woodwork, especially for a title like Spawn, especially in its earliest days. Spawn was, hands down, the most popular and best selling title at Image for most of the 90s. If Spawn #9 was printed to the tune of somewhere between 800,000-1.2 million copies...and this was at the very height of both Spawn, McFarlane, and Neil Gaiman, so there's no reason to think otherwise...then Image probably printed 100,000+ copies of the newsstand, which was still very much alive in 1993, despite the musings of some.

Based on the above photo, you say....?