RockMyAmadeus

Roll the bones! Ha! Fine art jokes!

If you don't know how to grade a comic for yourself, you are at the mercy of anyone and everyone. The point of grading is to find consensus...you agree with the grade that the third party has assigned to the book; rather than accepting it blindly because you don't know any better. The best investment anyone buying any slab could ever make is to take the time and learn how to grade for yourself. This advice will be ignored by 95% of the people who don't know how to grade, but to that 5% who take it to heart, you will be well rewarded.

I do not care about the new bags, so much as the new boxes, which are "1 and done" use. I have, for years, sent back submissions in the old, heavy duty boxes they used to use. The new boxes are good...barely...for about a single shipment, and then they are fit only for recycling. I am very tempted to send them a pallet...at my expense...and tell them to use those. Are you out there @Brittany M....? If you need to raise the price of shipping to provide the old boxes...please do so. Cutting costs by cutting corners doesn't help anyone.

Aided and abetted by the so-called "facilitators" who, out of their own self-interest, have told these creators...and I know this, because 1. I've heard them say it with their own mouths, and 2. I've heard creators parrot it back to me...that "everyone doing CGC is profiting off of your signature, so you need to charge more for it." ...this house of cards will come down, and the longer it takes, the higher it's built, the more spectacular the crash. So many things could be said about this...so many...but this isn't the thread for it. To be continued elsewhere...

There is no confusion about Pitt or Spawn's first appearances: they are in the first issue of Pitt and Spawn, respectively. A claim could be made about Pitt #1 ashcan, but until definitive proof comes out about which was published first...and Image was a hot mess in those days...then Pitt #1 is it. Malibu Sun is a preview publication, and does not contain any first appearances. The only confusion involving those is by people who own those issues, and wish to sell them for $$$, by confusing people who don't know any better into believing they are something they are not. The issue with Malibu Sun and Pitt/Spawn could not be any more different from Primer #5. Primer #5 is a comic book, containing a character, in sequential art format, created by Sam Kieth called "Max the hare", which is not....currently, mind you....the same character as the Maxx.

Well, there you go. People keeping track better than me. By the way...although I don't put too much stock in what the locals that worked at Image might say (being anonymous), it is an additional small piece of evidence to support the idea that many of these were tossed. HOWEVER...that comes with a huge caveat, considering I found a comparatively large stash of them in 2000-2001 from Jimmy Jay, who had bought them directly from the Image office in that time frame, 7-8 years after they were published (he bought several hundred ashcans, and these were in that purchase.) It included 10 copies of #2 black, and 1 copy of #3 black. If the rest of the pile was "thrown out" as the Image locals claim, my purchase wouldn't have been possible. As well, in 1993, comic buyers were still gaga over all things Image, so it seems incredibly unlikely that those books were "thrown out" due to "not selling." Not impossible...but certainly unlikely, especially up until the crash. We've discussed the ad where they were offered for sale by the outfit in Phoenix, AZ before. I forget the company name, but it was the one with the surfboard in the ad. That doesn't preclude many, or even most, of them being thrown out...but, certainly, not all of them were. We've been tracking them here on the boards for well over a decade, and despite diligent searches by Maxx fans for decades, only the 5 have been confirmed (as in, with photographic evidence.) So, are there actually 16 surviving copies? Perhaps, but I don't think they were sold and/or distributed on that basis. If there were 16 surviving copies...and yours is literally the first new copy to surface in almost a decade...I would imagine we would have seen/heard of at least a couple more by now. Of course...with such a tiny print run, it's entirely possible that ALL of these copies are just stashed, but...after the meltdown an devastation of the late 90s, the prevailing theory is that these were, in fact, tossed, not soon after publication, but rather years after the fact, either by Image directly, or retailers that had gone out of business.

Agreed.

Are you beginning to think that everyone is right? Pfffft. I knew that years ago. I DO need to start wearing my glasses, though.

That makes, I imagine, 8-10 copies of Robin #1 second printing newsstand, and 2 confirmed Superman #50 second newsstands. There's "jaydogrules"'s answer as to why I think Robin #1 2nd news is more common.

Sometimes scheduling gets messed up and stories aren't published in order. Sometimes stories are intentionally published out of order (see MSHSW). Sometimes the publishers just aren't concerned with the release dates lining up. This. It's not that #267 was supposed to come out before Annual #14...it wasn't...but editorial would have known the storyline for #265-#267...especially since X-Men was bi-weekly at this point...when Annual #14 was published. The fact is, Annual #14 isn't a cameo, DID come out before #266 (whether that was on purpose or accident) and DOES contain the first appearance of Gambit on multiple pages. So, #266 is valued higher. So? That doesn't change the reality that is Annual #14 being Gambit's FIRST APPEARANCE. And if people want to say #266 is Gambit's first FULL appearance, hey, great, no problem with that.

Like so many other things in this hobby, there are probably books that fall into a little bit of a gray area with this. For example, the reprints of Action Comics in the late '80s are pretty clearly reprints, as it onyl reprinted the Superman story. I'd say the same of the Marvel Milestone series, especially since the price was a lot more. The Chromium Amazing Spider-man 300? Probably a reprint, since a pretty significant time had passed, and the production of the cover was different. But what about New Mutants 87? Cover price is different (because about a year had passed between first and second print) and an additional gold ink was used. But it still feels like a second print. But then those differences also occur on the Amazing Spider-man 101 & 265 books from around the same time, but they feel more like reprints than second prints. I think this is one of those areas where collecting is more of an art form than a science. They are all reprints. Whether they are called "2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th, etc etc etc) prints" has historically depended on the format of the book, as recognized by the comic collecting community at large, AND the element of time: was it reprinted in a short amount of time, based on initial demand for the original, or was it reprinted much later? The Action #1 reprints aren't "second printings", because they're not printed in the same format as the original issue. They're only a partial reprint of that original book. Is ASM #300 chromium in the same format as the original? Sure, it's a single issue comic...but there are enough significant differences...in addition to the element of time...that they're not "second printings", as those are recognized. Batman #436 has a second printing which was made shortly after the first. Batman #428 does not have a second printing, but WAS reprinted in trade paperback form shortly after it was published. The Death In The Family Trade has a reprint of Batman #428 (as well as #s 426, 427, and 429.) Are ASM #101 and #265 (and Cap #282, and Marvel Milestones, and Classic X-Men, etc etc etc) "second" printings? Marvel called ASM #101 and #265...as well as the others...."second prints." Does that make it so? I don't think so, but you'd have a hard time convincing others. Sure, they're single issue comics...but there are enough differences, including the element of time, that distinguish them from the originals. Are Star Wars ##1-6 reprints, or "second" (or third, or fourth) printings? Marvel didn't distinguish between print runs, so we don't know. IS GI Joe #2 just a reprint, or does it have a real "second printing"? The first was printed four years before the second. That's a lot of time, BUT...it was produced in virtually the same format, so it's probably safe to call it a second print. As with everything, there are always exceptions. There are enough examples that follow these general rules that a generalization CAN be made.

That guy's a doosh.

By all means, you should do this and report here. I'm currently out of town "in-between" Baltimore and NYCC, so I won't be able to run new numbers until I get back, but that's not preventing anyone else from doing it. I cannot do what you suggest, because I spend very little time at dealer tables. I even forgot to visit @FlyingDonut at Baltimore. That said, I'm not quite sure your suggestion is random enough to work, but you never know. More data is always useful. PS. Rozanski is GREATLY mistaken about his estimates, which is unfortunate, because the ignorant keep repeating it as gospel. Those numbers are easily shown to be inaccurate, merely using probability models. I suspect Direct market distribution was NOT 6% at any point, from its beginnings in 1973/1974 on, precisely because such large players...like Western (through their Whitman 3-pack program)...were involved very early on, and it was such an attractive model. "What? I get a much bigger discount, and the only caveat is I have to keep what I don't sell, instead of devoting manpower to the returns system? Sign me up!" I've NEVER EVER EVER seen the "6%" quote confirmed from Shooter, anywhere, but I suspect. THAT said, however, 50% is much, much too high for any book that came out PRIOR TO June, 1979 cover date. After? Probably not hard. Before? Much, much more difficult. There's a reason for this, but no one has really figured out what that reason is. There seem to be some "obvious" theories...but they're just theories. "Big/small diamond" Direct issues prior to June, 1979 are much, much, much scarcer than their newsstand counterparts. Like maybe 1 in every 50, randomized (which, yes, puts us at 2%...but again, we're 40 years removed from their initial distribution.)

So....was Doc Strange being sold, as the statement directly suggests, on some newsstands...? Or did the editorial staff have no clue what the Circulation dept. did? I still think the most likely theory is that the quasi-newsstand vendors like Waldenbooks, B&N, Borders, and the like, which were far bigger than the comics publishers, were telling them that they needed to have barcodes on their books, or the book sellers wouldn't sell them. But that leaves so many unanswered questions, like "how were these companies made aware of Marvel and DC's entire product line, when typical newsstands were in the "you get what you get" method of distribution?"Did Marvel, DC, and others pursue the big book sellers through their marketing departments? The one thing I know for sure is that the book sellers did get new Direct comics, because I saw them there, and those Direct comics that didn't have UPCs (like Legends of the Dark Knight) got stickered, which annoyed me to no end. But they also had newsstand comics, which they carried until the very end (2013 for Marvel, 2017 for DC.) So, did they operate through the newsstand system AND the Direct system? Or some strange hybrid system? So many unanswered questions.

What must have been really obnoxious is that 1981 wasn't that far into the "comics specialty store" era that there weren't still a significant percentage of readers who only know of, and bought comics through, the newsstand, so Dazzler #2 might have left a good chunk of them scratching their heads, saying "how did I miss the first issue..?" Can you imagine any other sort of industry getting away with something like that? Forcing their customers to different places to buy their products?

If anything, they note "manufactured without top staple" on the label.

This deserves to be quoted in its own post !!!!!! Please include the rest of that idea: "it is proper restoration." To which I would add that it is "market acceptable" restoration.

That was something altogether different; the attempt to "relocate" damage from the spine to the back cover by "adjusting" the spine. That's just awful, and no way should that book have been rewarded for that. Just disgusting.

No offense, really, but...you and I have had a degree of conflict over the years. I don't trust you, and I wouldn't expect you to trust me. That's just the natural fallout from our personalities, not because you've committed a specific act of harm against me (and vice versa.) We're just oil and water; nothing wrong with that. Like I said, I don't do pressing for others. It's not worth it. I spent nearly 3 hours yesterday removing ground in tape residue from a book, painstakingly working particle by particle, so as not to remove even a single molecule of underlying ink (on an early 70s Marvel matte-style cover, no less), without chemicals (of course.) I did it as a labor of love, and to see if I could. Working with delicate instruments under magnification...this is the kind of work the real professional art restorers get paid $75/hour to do. I was watching a lecture yesterday about understanding where people are coming from...I can't link it, because it's quasi-political, but its title is "Not Answering The Question". by user "Counter Argument." He makes a point that more words, not less, means better communication. I've always lived by that rule here, because for all the moaning and complaining about "walls of text", the fact is, the average "wall" is far less than a typical newspaper column, and people ought to be seeking understanding, not complaining about having to read. It's worth a watch.

"reprint", as used in the comic industry, is just a catch-all term to describe any reproduction....or reprinting...of a previously published work, regardless of format. "2nd print", "3rd print", etc, generally...not always, but usually...means a specific reprinting in the same format. So, while all 2nd printings are reprints, not all reprints are 2nd printings, etc. In other words...in Marvel Tales #1 (1964), you find a reprint of Journey Into Mystery #83. But it is NOT a "2nd printing", because it's not in the same format as the original. Whereas, even with different covers, a 2nd printing of Batman #608 is properly called a 2nd printing because it's in the same format...a single issue comic...rather than the more generic reprint, even though it is both.

DC reprinted a few books in the late 80s to sell as 2 and 3 packs at places like KMart and Walmart. Mostly it was Batman and SUperman, but there are some Wonder Woman and Justice League reprints, as well. This continued into the 90s, sporadically, until DC launched their new "20 pack" bundle program in 1992 and their "boxed collector pack" program in late 1993-ish. Here's an example:

In some cases, yes, in other cases, no. In this case, as with most late 80s DC reprints, you can tell because the price box is the large "US Newsstand" price, with no corresponding UK or Can price, but instead of a UPC in the UPC box, you have "DC Comics Aren't Just For Kids"...which indicates a Direct copy. The only time you see that combo is on these reprints.

Atlas Western #1s.

Well, we're definitely talking about someone's poles being waved.

What condition are they in? Low grade books are easy tells. They get all flat where they shouldn't be. And who said you were getting them pressed...?